(I did a google search for "Iraq" for images, and this came up, so what the hell, I figured I'd use it :) )The best part about having this site (besides having an outlet to vent my crazy ideas that is), is this wealth of information and opinion that we are trying to foster that sometimes we don't all agree with.
Sometimes I think the best part about having opinions is being able to compare and contrast your way of thinking to others to form new ones, or perhaps (at the very least) force a long hard look at your own when someone feels so differently then you.
That being said, Shane, SayHey and I all share fairly similar views on Bush's mistakes, but on Iraq I think I divert a little bit from their thinking. This is a good thing though as a whole bunch of people agreeing on issues makes for a very boring blog :).
That being said, here I go...
The reasoning for invading Iraq has never truly been explained to my liking. Any generic "we need to control the area for regional security" argument to me, is fatally flawed for many reasons.
Saddam ran a damn tight ship. He had his issues with the Kurds and to some extent with Iran (I'm talking recently, we are all familiar with the Iran-Iraq "war" that basically mimicked the brutal trench warfare of WWI). He was the most stabilizing force in the region by far. The Saudis couldn't/can't control their own Wahhabi class of fundamentalists in their own welfare state, Syria is constantly marred by internal crackdowns by military leaders paranoid to all hell that they'll be the next one overthrown by their own troops, Jordan is a cute little "nothing" in the global spectrum (with a very gifted royal family though), and Iran that can probably very accurately be described as Bi-Polar when it comes to foreign policy.
I'm not defending anything Saddam did, because previous administrations in our country have done that for me already, but the argument that he destabilized the region doesn't hold weight to me.
The best argument I have heard actually comes from a few people, but most recently from a Mr. Alan Greenspan (you may have heard of him). He argued (and then very quickly backtracked for political reasons) that the reasoning for controlling the area is strictly economical when you factor in the "possible" oil reserves or futures in the area.
This is not a "blood for oil" argument for me. Before you start thinking that I'm some pinko World Bank protester (I do hate them too though, but also different reasons), I would have been totally on board with this war had it been explained to me the way Greenspan and some others have described it.
Lets face it. We rely on a fuel that has a finite amount of it available in the world. We ARE eventually going to run out of it, but the lead up to that point is going to be very VERY painful for us, and the world. If we as a nation do not do everything in our power to capture, obtain, steal, whatever, every source we think we know of, then someone else will. In this case in particular we have a very large, very powerful regional power named China very willing and able to move in at some point and claim those reserves for themselves.
If the administration came forward today and told me that they invaded Iraq purely to control the oil interests and thus America's economic interests in the future, I would stand behind them 100%. Its not ever easy sending people to die for what we feel are reasons unknown, but if these brave men and women died protecting the long term interests of our nation, doesn't that make their sacrifices far more valuable?
At the very least, their deaths are attributed to something more tangible then fighting a perceived ideal in the case of Vietnam and Korea (not to take ANYTHING away from those brave souls that fought and died in both of those horrible conflicts).
I don't honestly know if the Administration views this Iraq war the way I would like to. Part of me doesn't believe they can, but that is the cynical part that refuses to believe these cronies are capable of logical planning or thought.
I have a few thoughts on Iraq itself, but that will have to wait for another post, I've ranted enough as it is :).
PS: I think a drinking game could be invented based on how many times I write "That being said", "Honestly", "At the very least", or the use of the ( ) for side thoughts.
1 comment:
Those young men didnt die to defend the long-term interests of our nation; they died to defend the short-term interests of American and Saudi Arabian Oil Companies. It is not in our long-term interest to kill hundreds of thousands of people to secure a supply of oil, any more than it is in the long-term interest of an alcoholic to knock over a liquor store. This is all about putting off the Day of Reckoning you talk about for another generation or so, and if a million people need to die and a trillion dollars needs to be spent, so be it.
It's also all about providing billions upon billions of dollars in contracts to Bush and Cheney's friends. In 2000, these people- they called themselves "Patriots" if they could raise more than $200,000 each for Governor Chimp- donated a total of almost $300 million to get Bush elected. That turned out to be an excellent investment when you consider the treasury money that has flowed back into their pockets.
All along, everything Bush has done- from the War in Iraq to the "cleanup" of Katrina- has been about paying back his donors and stalling the conversion to new types of Energy for another century. Worth it? Not unless you were in on it- and are a ruthless, soulless, cold-blooded bastard.
Post a Comment