What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

[Galvatron]

Article

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required

But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

[Predator]

The political freedom of 25 million for a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars is a criminal choice compared with spending hundreds of billions of dollars on improving the lives of hundreds of millions of children suffering from malnutrition around the world, spending the money on education, sex education, and development in third world countries.

Even if Iraq magically works out, which I doubt it will, it will be a small amount of good tacked onto a large amount of greed and opportunism sold through deception. It is a truly tragic option compared with focusing on doing some genuine good to the greatest capacity possible.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not to mention it would still be ethically bankrupt because we did not choose Iraq for its population and its particular troubles. There are other more oppressed populations, and the more one adheres to this perspective, the more inconsistent and duplictuous we appear.

[Predator]

Not only that, even if we imagine that for some reason the only way the money could have been spent was on the "liberation" of Iraq - a big departure from reality -, and even if Iraq manages not to degenerate, but to become a decent society, and the insurgency die out - a huge if - it's not at all clear that on the whole the entire venture would have been worth it.

On the one hand, you'd have 25 million people significantly better off politically, and somewhat better off in terms of human rights.

On the other hand, you have a UN weakened even further. The last thing such an inefficient and toothless organisation needs is to be rendered even more "irrelevant" so that international relations can return to a state of pure anarchy.

Another thing is the cost, obviously.

You have the importance of international law diminished. "If it doesnt apply to America it doesnt need to apply to us".

You have a new and dangerous international norm, allowing "preventive" war on the flimsiest of justifications.

You have vastly increased anti-US foreign policy/government sentiment, and increased anti-American feelings outright the world over, the manifestations of which are difficult to predict and yet to be seen - but no doubt negative for Americans, who already face prejudice as travellers.

You have created a large number of veteran terrorists ready to spread their experience and destructive nature even further.

You have an American military whose poor capacity to occupy and secure enemy territory has been exposed. One small country requires so many occupational troops and still there is a lively insurgency. Even if, as we imagine in this scenario, it's eventually brought under control, the amount of time it has taken is damaging to the image of US power.

You have over 100k people dead who didnt need to be.

The quality of life in Iraq would need to vastly improve in order to justify these negatives.

[Frank Hipper]

I have a problem with this thread's title; if Bush has been right about Iraq all along, shouldn't we be finding WMDs?

[Predator]

The title should be altered to something more like "What if Bush has been right since his third or fourth justification?"

[Gunhead]

For the people of Iraq it wouldn't make a fucking difference if Bush had been right.

There still would be insurgents fighting the evil americans.

100 000 iraqis would still be dead as would be the 1000+ americans

Thousands would still be wounded some for life.

International politics would have been affected, but let's face it: Those fighting against the U.S and it's allies in Iraq wouldn't give a fuck if the bleeding ark of the covenant had been found there.

-Gunhead

[Stravo]

I am getting so sick and tired of hearing this is what Bush always intended and our mission is a success. NO. This war was sold on the fear that there were WMD's in Iraq. There are none, proven by every interested party including Bush's own teams. So now we have to move those goal posts an awful long distance to come to "freeing the people of Iraq."

I have a sneaking suspicion that if that were the sole reason offered two years ago the American public would have told Bush to go fuck himself. But now every Bush cock sucker in the world has conveniently forgotten the WMD issue and are basically jerking it to these elections and Iraqi freedom acoompanied to the sound of car bombs.

And if this is what you want please explain why we're not in Africa, North Korea and Iran. They want to be just as free as the Iraqis, no? They deserve freedom as much as Iraqis do, no? Or are we going to support freedom as long as your country is a push over?

[Darth Wong]

All of this "bring freedom to Iraq" nonsense is just Bush trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Yes, it's positive to try and do this for them now, but that's like proudly saying that you got a homeless man a job after you beat him up and raped him. Is he better off after all is said and done? Arguably yes. But that doesn't change the fact that you beat him up and raped him.

[Chmee]

No American ever signed off on sacrificing a thousand American kids (who will now NEVER get to vote) for enfranchising Iraqis. Bush never sold us this war as 'Rock the Vote: Iraq' because he never could have sold that ... instead he sold us a shiny used WMD bogeyman.

If Iraq gets the benefit of a stable and tolerant government out of this debacle, that would be nice .... but I'd still put money on the under in the Eagles-Pats game with a lot more confidence than betting on Iraq becoming Japan.

[Robert Walper]

And if this is what you want please explain why we're not in Africa, North Korea and Iran. They want to be just as free as the Iraqis, no? They deserve freedom as much as Iraqis do, no? Or are we going to support freedom as long as your country is a push over?

While I by no means want to jump to Bush's or the American's defense, I fail to see how that is a valid point. "There's other countries filled with oppressed people, why not free them too?" This strikes me like an arguement of "all or nothing" approach. The US can only do so much after all. The idea of "free everyone or don't free anyone" doesn't sound right to me.

[Chmee]

From this morning's Post:

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's preeminent Shiite cleric, put together the United Iraqi Alliance list, which includes parties with sharply contrasting views. Those differences are likely to sharpen over hard issues such as the writing of a new constitution and, sooner or later, asking the U.S. military to leave.

Khuzai, the spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Najafi, said the Shiite leadership had decided that U.S. forces could stay in Iraq -- for now.

"There appear to be good relations" between the Shiites here and American soldiers, said Khuzai, sitting cross-legged on a mat in a room bare except for a frame containing Koranic verse. But, he added ominously, "there are hidden aspects. It's like a snake: The skin is soft, but the snake is poisonous. The American soldiers are the skin, but the American policy is still on the inside."

The new constitution to be written by the transitional assembly also could prove divisive, embracing such issues as whether Iraq should adopt Islamic or secular laws.

"None of us believe that there should be a religious government," insisted Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, a top candidate on the Shiite list. "There is no feeling in this society for a religious government, at all. On the other hand, there is no way the society will accept a secular government. The difficulty is to find a way between them, a moderate way."

Link

So, they just need to find a government that's secular ... but not *too* secular ...

[Stravo]

And if this is what you want please explain why we're not in Africa, North Korea and Iran. They want to be just as free as the Iraqis, no? They deserve freedom as much as Iraqis do, no? Or are we going to support freedom as long as your country is a push over?

While I by no means want to jump to Bush's or the American's defense, I fail to see how that is a valid point. "There's other countries filled with oppressed people, why not free them too?" This strikes me like an arguement of "all or nothing" approach. The US can only do so much after all. The idea of "free everyone or don't free anyone" doesn't sound right to me.

The problem is one of priorities in policy. A policy of preventing WMD's and Nucelar proliferation works wonders. It limits your responses and gives you a nice set of rules to follow. If a nation is a threat with WMD's then you engage them diplomatically and if you must militarily. You have clear concise objectives and not every nation on Earth will qualify.

But if you're going to start saying that your primary foreign policy objective is spreading freedom and democracy well then, now you can be rightly criticized when freedom and democracy = knocking over countries that will be push overs, plunging them into a state of civil unrest for years and tieing up your resources so as to allow other countries to do as they please for some time.

And then even more pointedly you enter the sphere of freedom & democracy only for those that are weak enough for us to aid and if you live in a strong dictatorship that might bloody our noses - tough shit.

Bush is pulling this bullshit because it sounds nice and these same fuckers that tore into Clinton and others like rabid weasels for making vague foreign policy promises are simply slurping the cum off Bush's cock as he announces this new direction in foreign policy without thinking it though to its logical conclusion. But logic and Bush supporters have never really been friends.

[Chmee]

CAIRO, Feb. 1 -- Egyptian authorities have cracked down on opposition groups in recent days during a time of increasingly active efforts to stop President Hosni Mubarak from extending his 24-year rule in a referendum later this year.

On Saturday, police arrested Ayman Nour, leader of the opposition Tomorrow Party. Prosecutors charged him with falsifying petitions that resulted in the legalization of his party in October. On Monday morning, a court extended the initial four-day detention to 45 days, according to his wife, Gamila Ismail.

"It's a message to him and every party that opposes the government," Ismail said. "Active parties that are serious about opening offices and genuinely recruiting followers will not be allowed."

Link
Now let's write Egypt another military aid check and let freedom ring, baby!

[Crown]

Egypt is a powederkeg. Too many recently graduated university students who know their government is corrupt, and too many poor un-educated religious nut cases who know their government is corrupt. And they both know that the west is proping them up. Oh yeah ... this will end well.

[Stravo]

Egypt is a powederkeg. Too many recently graduated university students who know their government is corrupt, and too many poor un-educated religious nut cases who know their government is corrupt. And they both know that the west is proping them up. Oh yeah ... this will end well.

By propping them up I'm sure you mean we are helping to spread freedom and democracy, right?

[Crown]

Egypt is a powederkeg. Too many recently graduated university students who know their government is corrupt, and too many poor un-educated religious nut cases who know their government is corrupt. And they both know that the west is proping them up. Oh yeah ... this will end well.

By propping them up I'm sure you mean we are helping to spread freedom and democracy, right?

Yes of course ... why? *whistles innocently as two men dressed in raincoats and wearing wide rim hats walk past*

[Chmee]

Egypt is a powederkeg. Too many recently graduated university students who know their government is corrupt, and too many poor un-educated religious nut cases who know their government is corrupt. And they both know that the west is proping them up. Oh yeah ... this will end well.

By propping them up I'm sure you mean we are helping to spread freedom and democracy, right?

What they're spreading probably helps the crops grow better.

[Medic]

What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

About WMD? We know that answer. As mentioned everything else after that has been post-hoc rationale. He could not have been right "all along"

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

Wow, this reminds me of the Carl Sagan quote someone had here at SD.net. How in religion and politics people simply don't change there mind but in science you see it. Someone takes a bad position and is proven wrong and he says "wow, I'm wrong, your reasoning is superior and I agree with it." It isn't common but it happens.

Now Mr. Brown here might change his mind but he's got shit for reasons. Bush won't have proven shit if (!) Iraq becomes this iddylic democratic paradise in the Middle East unless it spreads like wild fire in the Middle East; doubtful in my opinion. I still don't see it worth the billions invested in the war so far.

He opposed the war from day 1 and now might go back by virtue of the democracy spreading rationale [Bush]That's the ticket![/Bush] possibly (!) coming to fruition. Ther are different flavors of opposing the war though! I supported the war from Day 1 but changed my mind because of the enormous cost, human and material. Tch, Brown even admits the war still leaves more problems unsolved:

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

You just can't in the end ignore reality. I don't see enough in the current situation to justify all we have spent and wasted so far. Seems like just another characteristically wasteful American solution to WMD, er, links to Al Qaeda, er uh, er democracy needing to be spread.

[RedImperator]

This is where the heartless realist in me says, "This is nice, but is the United States overall in a better position because of it?" A free democratic Iraq certainly goes in the plus column, but the expense in time, money, political capital, and human lives goes in the minus column. Nobody knows at this point what the balance actually is because this is still going on--Iraq can still blow up and make this whole adventure a giant waste, or a wave of democratic revolutions could sweep the Arab world and we march into the 21st Century with what would have been a giant festering sore healed, making this one of the best investments the US has ever made. I leave you to guess which one I think is more likely.

[Medic]

The US isn't even better off if Iraq is a success. It will her to further glory... that is if the Neo cons still have any say so after Bush.

[Medic]

*ug,
edit

It will inspire her to further glory...

[Durandal]

The election was a huge positive for Iraq, and it's overshadowed what has mostly been chaos. The Daily Show has a journalist on last night (can't remember his name) who had just returned from Iraq, though, and he basically said the reason the elections worked out so well was because the country was basically under a state of martial law, and Baghdad's streets were completely closed down.

The election coupled with the still-hilarious GI Joe hostage has kind of made it seem like the insurgency has just completely keeled over overnight. But I really don't think that the state of things is going to hold up. It'll probably be back to the normal "Car bombing kills 40 in Baghdad" headlines within a week or two.

[Darth Wong]

The election was a huge positive for Iraq, and it's overshadowed what has mostly been chaos. The Daily Show has a journalist on last night (can't remember his name) who had just returned from Iraq, though, and he basically said the reason the elections worked out so well was because the country was basically under a state of martial law, and Baghdad's streets were completely closed down.

The election coupled with the still-hilarious GI Joe hostage has kind of made it seem like the insurgency has just completely keeled over overnight. But I really don't think that the state of things is going to hold up. It'll probably be back to the normal "Car bombing kills 40 in Baghdad" headlines within a week or two.

More like this morning. They just killed a couple of more American soldiers and ambushed a bus of Iraqi soldiers, killing almost all of them.

[Crown]

More like this morning. They just killed a couple of more American soldiers and ambushed a bus of Iraqi soldiers, killing almost all of them.

Maybe the took time off to vote?