For rhetorical purposes, i'll assume that this represents your personal views, formed without reference to administration propaganda; and here is my response:
georgeob1 wrote:My notion that the overall security situation of the United States has been improved is based on the following;
1. More than a year ago before the U.S. announced its intent to bring about regime change in Iraq the sanctions regime was already crumbling. The European powers on the Security Council, led by France and Russia (both of which had very substantial financial stakes in the matter) were openly ready to scuttle the sanctions: their support for the sanctions came later and only as a means of delaying or preventing U.S. intervention. Saddam, armed with billions in annual oil revenues, could have posed a grave threat to U.S. security interests in the Gulf and the Mideast. Our choice was either to take him out, or eventually face that situation.
You've provided no substantiation for these contentions, not for the crumbling of the sanctions regime (although i'd readily acknowledge that sanctions were an ugly joke, and only harmed the Iraqi people), not for any effort on the part of France and Russia to "scuttle" the sanctions, and certainly not for any grave threat which Saddam allegedly posed to the security of the United States. Saddam notionally posed a threat to the physical security of nations in the region, but that is only a threat to United States interests, and, specifically, to the interests of a very small group in this country who profit from the imporation of middle east oil--you haven't demonstrated, nor do i believe you could, that the direct physical security of the United States was threatened. The prospect of the energy industry losing profits, or more likely, being obliged to gouge us more at the gasoline pump than they currently do, is a damned flimsy excuse for pre-emptive war. "Our choice was either to take him out, or eventually face that situation." Oh really--what situation is it that you contend we would eventually have been obliged to face? You're making vague statements without substantiation to justify the war, which is anything but vague--it's immediate effects have been the deaths of American and British troops, and untolled thousands of Iraqis. It's long-term consequences have yet to reveal themselves.
Quote:2. The opposition of Islamic fundamentalists to the West and to the U.S.in particular had already been demonstrated beyond doubt. There was nothing more to be lost with them and everything to be gained if we could create a moderate, secular regime that could become a counterforce to them. Iraq is, by far the best and most likely candidate for such a development.
Your language here is very revealing: "The opposition of Islamic fundamentalists to the West . . . " To what, specifically, do they oppose themselves? What, specifically does the West offer or threaten which is opposed by Islamic fundatmentalist and which justifies pre-emptive war to force their acceptance thereof? This is the most vague statement you've made so far. Leaving aside the the question of "nothing more to be lost with them" for now, you have not provided a shred of evidence that we gain anything from the creation of moderate, secular regime in Iraq. The previous regime was already secular, and, in fact, persecuted Shi'ites and Wahabis precisely because Saddam perceived deep religious conviction among Sunni muslims, and the simple existence of muslims who were not Sunni as a threat to his regime. You provide no evidence that we will be able to establish such a moderate, secular regime, nor that this administration has even taken any significant or useful steps in that direction. Your statements are pronouncements, given without substantiation, and apparently to be accepted
a priori, and without question. What is it about Iraq which makes it "by far the best and most likely candidate for such a development."; on what basis do you contend that such an outcome is capable of achievement, other than a very long and costly occupation of Iraq? As for nothing more to be lost with them, a more effective recruiting campaign for terrorist organizations based on fundamentalist Islamic belief would be hard to imagine. The Bush administration has done precous little to force the Israelis into compliance with prior agreements that state has made for the resolution of the conflict there, and that is a major source of the hatred for the United States which exists in the Muslim world. The other great greivance of the Islamic fundamentalists, and in particular the Wahabi sect of which bin Laden is a member, is the presence of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia in proximity to the holy places of Islam. Pulling the troops out now is a classic example of the vanished horse and the barn door. Not all Muslims are Arabs, and in the Arab world in particular, there has been deep anger, shame and resentment at their own powerlessness, since the 1920's when Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill carved up the middle east to suit the desires and the greed of France and England. That resentment has been "re-fueled" with a vengeance by this war. There was very much to be lost, and Bush and Company are busily losing it as fast as their dull wits will allow.
Quote:3. The example of firm, independent action on the part of the U.S. has already favorably changed the behavior of key players in North Asia concerning North Korea. China is now willing to engage the issue. The North Korean calculus for their bullying behavior and attempts at nuclear blackmail has been made far more adverse for them. South Korea has begun to break out of the grip of the illusion that they could call the shots on U.S. policy and still enjoy U.S. security guarantees. Japan is less likely to conclude that they need to develop nuclear weapons.
This is a side issue to the question of whether or not a pre-emptive war was justifiable, inasmuch as it it predicated upon the war having taken place. I consider your analysis here to be facile, and the contention that South Korea has ever been able to "call the shots on U.S. policy" is not simply unsupported anywhere in what you have written, it is a fairy tale. North Korea's bargaining technique has always been brinksmanship, and Kim Jong Il is no more likely to apply the logic of Bush and Company to the situation because of the war in Iraq than he ever was in the past. This is only a credible thesis if one assumes that the United States is prepared to go to war with North Korea as it did with Iraq. I doubt if that were so, especially given that North Korea is no paper tiger, and China would not stand idly by in such an event. Iraq had no such backstop as that; it was easier to bully them, since they had to big brother to run to. War with North Korea would mean tens of thousands of American casualties, even without Chinese intervention.
Quote:4. The feckless behavior of the western world in the grip of the world weary western European (old Europe) obsession with world governance through legalisms (workable only in the West) and avoiding at all costs any risky confrontation, whether with genocide (either in Africa or even in the Balkans), or proximate threats of terrorism, has been replaced with a measure of values based leadership, self confidence and a willingness to meet serious challenges.
That the United States would not look to Europe for leadership in world affairs is, or ought to be, a given. That this justifies pre-emptive war predicated upon the existence of weapons of mass destruction which have not been found, links to Al Quaeda which have not been proven, and threats to the security of other nations in the region which you haven't bothered to demonstrate is not only specious, it is an arrogance and hubris equivalent to that displayed by the "Holy Alliance" formed by Austria, Prussia and Russia after the defeat of Napoleon. By what right does the United States determine that some other nation might be a threat, and is therefore justified in making war in contravention of the norms of international law? On such a basis, China would be justified in an invasion of Vietnam the next time they piss off the Chinese (a regularly occurring event for almost 2000 years), without regard to the destabilizing consequences for Southeast Asia. Russia could use such a justification for invading Iran, or in retaking the Islamic states which were formerly a part of the Soviet Union. The United States has established a very dangerous precedent, and done so on the basis of flimsy allegations which it did not bother to prove in advance. Not ". . . replaced with a measure of values based leadership, self confidence and a willingness to meet serious challenges." -- rather, the U.S. has shoved it's values down the collective throat of the world, which is bullying and not leadership (leadership implies a willingness to follow on the part of others), arrogance rather than simply self-confidence, and a willingness to fabricate challenges to further an agenda determined upon before Iraq was given it's ultimatum, and before the United Nations Security Council was consulted.
Quote:We have excellent reasons to believe that each of these considerations was very much a part of the strategic thinking in the Bush administration. Each represents a significant issue with lasting importance. It is too early to claim success on any but the first, but without these outcomes our situation and that of the western world would be much more dangerous than it is today.
I have no reason to believe any of that. I have good reason to suspect that this was a grudge match, that Administration insiders and cronies have expectations to profit (consider the Halliburton contract, granted without a bid), and that no strategic interests have been served. I stated here at this forum, before the war, that this was a dangerous side venture, which distracted us from the war on terror and used resources better applied to that struggle. I continue to consider that to have been and to be the case. Having failed to provide any substantiation for the claims you have made above, you provide no evidence to support your contention that "without these outcomes our situation and that of the western world would be much more dangerous than it is today." Given the likely response of Islamic terrorist organizations, samples of which have been provided in Saudi Arabia and Morroco, i have every reason to believe that the recklessness and ineptitude of the current administration have made the world much more dangerous indeed. Indonesia has already taken this as a cue that military might can be used to crush its own people on a bald and unsubstantiated contention of fundamentalist terrorist threat, and the examples of this are likely to multiply in the weeks, months and years to come.
Quote:It is easy to find fault with the difficulties on the road we travel - much harder to see and think through the dangers we are avoiding.
It certainly is difficult to see said dangers when you provide no evidence of them. You have also failed to provide a single credible piece of evidence which justifies the United States having lauched a pre-emptive war.
c.i.
