> From: Trent Shipley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, 6 April 2004 5:27 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror > > > On Monday 2004-04-05 23:35, Andrew Paul wrote: > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > And I hope they are better off, cos that seems to be only shred of > > justification left for this war, so it would be nice if we got that > > right. > > Justifications: > > -- Energy security, energy security, and energy security! > Saudi Arabia is not > *nearly* as stable as one would like, nor are other Gulf states. > -- Permanent basing rights. (Needed mostly to insure energy > security.) > -- Create government friendly to the US and other Anglophone > allies per > Germany Japan and Italy. > -- Intimidation of regimes hostile to the US, especially > those whose security > apparatuses may be sponsoring (admittedly old fashioned) > terrorists. (For > example, Libya suddenly has a new attitude.) > -- Prior to war we were looking at Iraq being an eternal > diplomatic and > security concern for US foreign policy. With the war and > occupation Iraq is > still likely to be a diplomatic disaster but at least it's > not GURANTEED to > be an ongoing foreign policy cesspool. >
I was thinking more from the viewpoint of moral justifications, rather than your pragmatic examples. From the practical angle, I still think it's a mistake though. At best I would say the way it was/is done was a mistake. And why the pretext of setting up some Brave New Iraq if its just going to remain a US puppet state. Just leave the troops there and make it a 53rd state. Hell, all those oil taxes might just solve the deficit problem (though I doubt it). > Yes, its nice that the Iraqis are better off, but if alturism > is the only > justification for this war then the Administration and its Perlescent > advisors are incompetent. > One could come to that opinion. I guess I am clutching at straws to try to understand it. I don't think helping Iraqis was high on anyone's list at the time. > There are no end of situations that could benefit from from > US peacekeeping or > military interventions. Do we interveve? No! Why not? > Because it is not in > our national interest (as Republicans are usually the first > to point out). > There are hundreds of places where multinational UN sanctioned peacekeeping intervention would seem a possible good idea. I think most of those would have trouble seeing US troops under the Star Spangled Banner as peacekeepers at this time. But yes, point taken. Although it does depend upon ones definition of national interest. > Yes, the Iraqis are no worse off and are probably better off. > That's darling. > I'm happy for them. But it is entirely inadequate to justify > the cost in > American lives, treasure, and diplomatic capital. > > Given that ordinary Iraqis really had little choice in the matter, and that they were the invadees, not the invaders, I think we owe them some sort of hope for the future. And I think that would be in everyone's national interest ultimately. I never understood what this war was supposed to achieve, and still don't. I doubt it will solve any of the problems you outlined above, at least not without raising larger more scary ones. I think the US government has squandered lives, treasure and diplomatic capital, and that's a terrible shame, cos they had the power and chance to do a lot of good. Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
