I’m not much interested in revisionist debates about the Iraq War, although I know we will be having these debates for the next couple of decades. Basically, anything good or positive that happens in Iraq (or in the Middle East, more generally) can and will be pointed to to justify the invasion of Iraq and the removal from power of Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist henchmen. Additionally, any criticism that points to the high level of casualties, the disruption of Iraqi society, or the sheer cost of the endeavor, will be met with criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld for not using enough initial force.
There is a simple rebuttal to this nonsense. While it is indeed possible to make lemonade out of lemons, the invasion of Iraq was premised on lies, did not address an imminent threat to our country, and was therefore immoral. While we must continue to make foreign policy in the world, and therefore cannot continually harp on this grave breach of ethics, it really is very simple. You cannot cheerlead a war of aggression…even retroactively.
Why did we go to Iraq? For Bush’s pleasure:
“the disruption of Iraqi society“
Understatement alert! Shredding of Iraqi society is more like it.
“While it is indeed possible to make lemonade out of lemons, the invasion of Iraq was premised on lies, did not address an imminent threat to our country, and was therefore immoral….You cannot cheerlead a war of aggression…even retroactively.You cannot cheerlead a war of aggression…even retroactively.“
There is no right way to do something that is 100% wrong at its core.
It could be argued that Hitler modernized Poland in the long run, too.
Except that Iraq was a hell of a lot more modern before the U.S. got its hands on it starting in the ’80’s. In fact, it was after Iraq cut relations with the U.S. in 1967 that its most golden period in modern times began. By the mid-’70’s and early ’80’s Iraq was designated an emerging first world country based on the economic and social criteria used to make that determination.
Over a 20-plus year period the U.S. slowly destroyed Iraq (with the cooperation of Saddam, of course), taking it from an emerging first-world country to sub-third world. In 2003 George Bush and his merry band of neocons delivered the coup de grace, and they’ve been twisting the knife ever since.
We went into Iraq so that oil companies could make bigger profits on oil.
Not really. It was much, much bigger than oil company profits, which were just the icing on the cake.
And in any case, the big oil companies were not exactly pushing for the invasion. Quite the opposite, they were opposed to it.
ethics…what ethics? there’re extinct inside the beltway. here’s ag holder’s latest ass covering…this time he’s protecting cheney and using a discredited olc memo as justification… written by none other than steven bradbury.
Obama’s Bogus New Excuse for Secrecy
the judge in the case ain’t buying it, but c’mon…what’s this all about if not covering up?
a new transparency?… bah! DOA
this looks like a fight for the prerogatives of the Executive Branch.
I think it’s stupid, but I doubt the motive is to protect Cheney. It’s probably about protecting Biden.
This kind of thing was predictable. Once the Bush regime obtained excess power and privilege for the executive it was very unlikely that trend would be reversed. Human nature is what it is.
It brings to mind this old familiar phrase:
It’s probably worth noting that just or not, the casualties of modern wars are now 95% civilian on average. It’s time for the people who think soldiering is noble and honorable to go live on a remote island where they can kill each other to their hearts’ content and leave the rest of us out of their homicidal fantasies.
A first step in that direction might be to reverse the dangerous soldier-worship that has spread — largely for the most cynical of reasons — among the modern left and stop adulating soldiers and, at the very least, start pitying them as gullible young people who are bullshitted into dying for causes that benefit tiny minorities who would themselves never venture onto a battlefield.
Yeah – 95% of the “damage” is “collateral”. Please tell us again why it is that they hate “us”.
“gullible young people who are bullshitted into dying for causes that benefit tiny minorities who would themselves never venture onto a battlefield.“
Don’t you mean gullible young people who allow themselves (sometimes all too happily) to be bullshitted into committing mass murder and mayhem?
Youth follow their nations propaganda. They are easily hypnotized by the siren song of nationalism. Its our society that has been bullshitted into mass murder and mayhem.
…and yes sometimes all too happily. So much so it scares me.
On the contrary, more often than not it has been the youth who have challenged the nation’s propaganda. Remember the ’60’s and ’70’s in America?