Monday, January 14, 2008

When assertion just won't do

'My take on the Iraq war has been settled for a while: The decision to invade was a huge mistake, but cutting and running would only make things worse.'

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/contra_sullivan_on_the_surge_a_small_wars_perspective/

The above is an unexceptional position for tens of millions of Americans, both on the right and left. What strikes me is that although bloggers and journalists very often go on to explain the latter statement, virtually none feel the need to explain the first proposition. Its not good enough.

It is far from settled that 'invading' Iraq was a huge mistake. I think I know why people don't explain their reasons though: they don't KNOW why it was a huge mistake, they FEEL that it was a huge mistake. After four years of hearing everybody from the leader of the House of Representatives to the KosKids screeching that 'Iraq was a huge mistake', it seems beyond most peoples capacity to hold that it was a good idea. And in their defense, even the original proponents of an intevention seem to have gone very quiet and wandered off into the undergrowth (much to my disgust). So why was the Iraq intevention not 'a huge mistake'?

First of all, the festering of cruelty and corruption in the last years of Saddam needed to be stopped. Iraqis were suffering terribly from the awful situation engineered by the UN and Saddam, a grotesque circumstance where Oil was traded for food which never got to the people who needed it, and Saddam took the opportunity to kill many of his own people by pretending that international sanctions prevented him from providing food and medicine. Russian, French and German government officials who were bribed by Saddam with oil contracts provided the latter with both a conduit for his twisted propaganda, and a buffer against those countries who would not take Saddams dirty money. Destroying that sordid and murderous thicket was a major reason for destroying Saddams regime.

Secondly, the Baathist rule of Iraq was a danger to its neighbors, in particular Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi army was huge and experienced, two things nobody would accuse the Saudi army of. About a quarter of the worlds (not just America's) oil comes from Saudi. If that stops, or falls into the hands of an antagonistic despot like Saddam, the world stops. Simple as that.

Thirdly, Iraq is pivotal in the middle east. Although not the most populous (Egypt is), nor the best endowed (Saudi is), nor the most problematic (Lebanon is virtually not a country) it sits in the middle of the middle east. Its in the middle both psychologically and physically. All the crucial middle eastern countries border it. What goes on in Iraq, for good or ill, is immediately apparent to virtually everybody in the middle east. So if we look forward five years, to a possible future where a strong, prosperous and law-abiding Iraq hums and crackles with life and hope, putting into stark relief the battened-down, miserable, poverty-stricken lives of its neighbors populations; that is huge motivating force to remove the crappy despotic regimes of Syria, Iran and Egypt and replace them with something that works for the average Joe.

Finally, our economies need oil. How are you going to drive yourself to the next NoWarForOil rally without some gas in the tank? How are you going to stock your Vegan food hall without trucks to ship the produce in? How are you going to write your HateBushitler Blog without a computer manufactured largely of plastic? Its a toughy I know...

No comments: