No disrespect but even still "most people" look at the Iraq situation thru the vacuum of their own personal beliefs. Or in Political narcissism. The execution of the Iraq war may have been flawed but the strategy behind it wasnt.
What is worth those Lives? Was the freedom of western Europe worth all the Yank $$, and constant threat of armageddon? Even if the Soviets over ran west Europe how could they have still threatened us? Or our Hemisphere? Was Vietnam worth it? Korea? Why did we care? And why do Europeans always say we are fighting for a big "nothing"?
Why did we care that Saddam made us all look like fools and weaklings with his 10 years of WMD shell games? Obstructing inspectors? Violating every UN resolution against him? Attempting to assassinate a former President visiting Kuwait? I mean who really gives a damn?
And why should we give a damn about installing the seed of Democracy in a troubled region which will know no peace until such freedoms flourish? Why should we care about surrounding and checkmating the terrorist supporting states whos support has caused the murder of our citizens for 40 years on-going?
I mean nobody else really cares right? Except for a few of our brave friends in the world. Why should any of us care about such hostile Dictatorships/terror supporting states developing nuclear weapons? Its going to have to be our children who will be at most risk in the future probably after were all dead. So who cares?
That's one reason, there are other I have outlined in this thread and others. Take a look at a map of the region showing the disposition of US forces/allied forces before and after 9/11. The true picture of our strategy will appear.
I'm filled with sorrow and concern about our losses, and those of our allies, in this war. However a soldier, or a Policeman, chooses their life. Soldiers or Policemen dieing in the GWOT are "acceptable losses". Innocent civilians dieing are not.
So in your opinion the iraq war is a "just war"? before we can make moral judgements we first need to understand the reasons behind the war, which no one has really outlined or discussed.
Is Iraq part of the GWOT? well it is now. But there was absoloutly no Al Qaieda presense in Iraq prior to 2003 or a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussain whatsoever. They were enemies not allies, any religious extreemism was a real threat to the Baathists and was outlawed, and Bin Laden described Hussain as the great devil (cant remember were i read that), so 9/11 had nothing to do with OIF, exept maybe in the US public mindset.
WMD's? Well there was really no trace of them. I mean no werehouses, no leftovers, nothing. The sad fact of the matter is that the Iraqies WMD capability had been decimated by several rounds of US air strikes during the period of containment. So what about the UN inspections? I think that was more to do with internal politics than hiding a WMD program. In 91 the whole south of the nation revolted against sadam, he also used chemical weapons against rebelious Kurdis civiliens, so i think Sadam's gratest percieved threats were internal. His solution to this was to have an external enemy, one that the iraqie people would see that killed hundreds of thousands of conscript soldiers, cut off medical supplies and bomb their nation intermittently. Sadams claim that he was the only thing keeping them safe from the "hethen" invaders would seem more than plausible to the average iraqie than the reality that he was the cause of such things. He didn't percieve the west as a real threat because they had the perfect opportunity to remove him in 91 and they didn't, it was clear that they weren't prepared to deal with the mess that iraq would be without the baathists. So one way to keep the hated enemy an enemy was too keep UN inspectors dancing around and UN sanctions and periodic US air strikes in place, not too hide his WMD's, that had probably been destroyed in previous air strikes. This is why when the push for an invasion of iraq really gathered pace in the UN and the US media, Sadam allowed UN inspectors full acsess, because now the west was more of a threat than his contrymen. And what did Hans Bix find? Not a trace of the weapons themselvs, or any infestructure needed to produce WMD's. And NK was a much larger threat, (even percieved threat) than Iraq, so why this massive push for an invasion? This was the main argument behind going too war, and it was pushed verry hard by those making that argument. But it was based on thin intel when there was somewhat more solid evidence too the contrary. It seemed like the justification needed to an invasion that had other motivations.
Regime change? Sadam was a brutal dictator, and mass murderer. I was glad to see the pictures of him at the gallows, knowing the world was a better place. But why Iraq? There are many regimes in Africa that are just as bad or worse, some even supported by the US. So why would the US pay hundreds of billions of dollars and over 30 000 casualties to remove this not so remarkable evil dictator, when it ignores or supports worse regimes around the globe? eg. ethiopia who you said actively traded chidren as sexual slaves in "get your war on down in the horn". That doesn't make much sense too me. (i'm not making a moral judgement at all, just that this is a moral argument made by the US for a justification of the war, and IMO needs rebuttal, so i dont want too get into an argument about the evils of sadam and the great things the US has done for the world, in general i agree with both of those things)
To plant the seed of democracy in the region? If this was the real motive and WMD's and regime change were the cover for it this makes a bit more sence, but not much. If it was it was one masive mistake. The US compleatly misjudged the compistion of Iraqie culture. Iraq is a tribal society. Peoples loyalties lie with there extended family, then thier tribe, then their religion, not their political beliefs. So what happend when the iraqies voted, the Shiite majority elected a shiite prime minister, who it seems has contued a Shiite dominated army and police force, and continued the opression of sunni's. What happened when there was an alleged rape of a sunni women, the investigation into men involved was droped within days. When a Shiite security station was raided by iraqie special forces directed by British forces in Basra in the past week, and found eveidence of torture and murder, he called for the Coaltion troops involved too be punished. Democracy can't work in Iraq for the simple reason that it can not function in their cultural structure. People will allways support or employ people from their family or tribe or religion, whether their right for the job, or right in the argument, or not. It is just their way. This shows the west's ignorance too the cultural differences in the region. But if this was the real reason behind the invasion, it seems like a massive investment in blood and money to back this experiment. You could draw paralells between this and the US's actions in WW2 or the cold war. But in both those instances the US's comercial interests were at stake, as was their verry way of life. It was a massive benifit to the US too have a free western europe, from Nazism or Communism. If the objective was too have a democratic mid east from egypt to iran, and to achieve this by removal of Sadam by force, then to say that they were missguided is an understatement. Why then would you allow lebanon, a democratic nation that had ousted syria and become a stable democray without external intervention, to be fataly weekend by isreal? If spreading deomcracy across the mid east is a goal you are willing to pay 3000 lives, 30000 caualties and hundreds of billions of dollars on that is? (again i'm not geting into a moral argument, it just seems to be counterproductive) this explination also doesnt seem too make much sense. I agree it would be very advantagous to the US and the rest of the West if all of the mid east were stable democracies, a little eurpoe if you will, but this is inconsistant with the US's actions and alliances throughout the region. So arguing that this is all about exportation of democracy at the point of the bayonette is a bit silly.
Economic reasons? Was the invasion aimed at breaking OPEC? OIF did indeed open up Iraq's massive oil reserves to the world market, and gave the US a defacto seat at OPEC. This may seem like a very strong motive for OIF, especially with a world wide peak oil year that has probably just passed, and a US economy addicted to oil, OPEC would be able to hold the world in general, and the US in particular to ransom. However even with Iraqi oil on the market the price of oil has not fallen, in fact it has risen, and it seems like there is a real movement within the US to "kick the oil habit". So although this is more likely explination still doesnt fit all the facts.
Has the US simply picked their battlefields? The possability that OIF's goal was to provide a focal point in the central mid east for jihadies from the region has been put to me before. The hijackers on 9/11 were mostly saudi and there are large jihad movements in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, state sponsered or not it would be compleatly unfeasable to invade and occupy all of these nations. However with Iraqs central position in the mid east, it could be seen as an ideal battleground for the US with these jihadi movements (you can call them Al Qaide if you want but i dont like calling anything thats muslim and extreem Al Qaida). It is a limited battlespace that can be dominated by air assets without frear of interdiction by conventional forces. This would fulfill the "fight them over there not over here" need that has risen after 9/11. It also fits the aparant tactical focus of the US military, i.e kill as manny terrorists/extreemists as possible. If this is the case then has to be one of the worst strategeic desisions ever made by the US. They are not only fighting Jihadis but the dozen or so other factions in Iraq such as the mahadi army, who are in turn fighting each other, and the jihadi/insurgents for that matter, and have nothing to do with the global jihad movement. They were sent into battle without the tools to effectivly wage it, after the regime was defeated most of the coalition forces went into force protection because they simply didn't have the assets to effectively controll the battlespace. They heve started a civil war in a pivetal nation in the middle east, that will probably lead to Iranian, saudi and syrian involvement that will destabalise the entire region, and could possibly lead to a regional war. And perhaps most importantly they have lost a massive amount of ground in middle muslim opinion, and have swelled the ranks of the global jihad movement with fresh recruits. If anything they have aided al quaida with the invasion, swelling ther ranks with new and angry recruits and bank acounts with fresh donations from sympathetic saudi's. This is more likely, but i still have a hard time believing that the US political and military leadership could get it so rong.
To be honnest none of the reasons above, or ever put to me explain why the "coaltion of the willing" is in Iraq. People often draw parallells between he US's greatest acts and the current situation, like liberation and reconstruction of europe and the emancipation of the western empiers, or the US commitment to NATO during the cold war, and its current campaign in Iraq. This emotional argument is a powefull one, and is very similar to the argument made by Paul Wolfowitz at his position as deputy secretary of defence during his campaign for the invasion that "we can not appeise sadam like we did hitler". This paralell between WW2 and the current situation is a powerfull argument, however it is not really aplicable to the facts and is really just a patriotic and emotional statement. The sad fact is we were led into a unwinable war under false pretenses, for undefinable reasons, without a clear political soloution. I for one will ask more questions of my political leader next time a decision of this magnitude needs to be made, i only hop all of us in the west will do the same.
