War is unbelievably expensive. In lives - over 1,000 Americans, dozens of other foreigners, tens of thousands of Iraqis. In money - billions spent, going back from a balanced budget to a deficit.
Sometimes, war is necessary. Pretty much nobody argues that the U.S. shouldn't have participated in World War II. Of course, there's no doubt about who attacked Pearl Harbor, or about who was trying to invade our allies in Britain; no doubt that going to war with Japan and Germany meant attacking enemies that really did have the intent and ability to injure us.
That information was far less solid in Iraq. Indeed, in hindsight it's proven that American security was not improved by overthrowing Saddam - that the weapons we feared he'd use didn't exist. Going to war in Iraq is roughly analogous to attacking Brazil in 1941; there was simply no need to do it.
So now, we've removed Saddam Hussein. He hated our guts and brutalized his own people. On the other hand, foreigners who entered Iraq for apolitical reasons were safe. So were everyday Iraqis, as long as they didn't engage in political activity. Iraqis who wanted to pursue other-than-majority religious activity were tolerated; compliance with Islam was between the Iraqi and God.
What have we replaced Saddam with? Anarchy. No foreigner is safe in Iraq. Neither is any ordinary Iraqi. Especially if they take one of the few jobs available in the country, working for the Iraqi government, the U.S. government, or any firm attempting to rebuild the country's infrastructure. Religious police are enforcing fundamentalist Islam in many parts of the country; Iraqis who used to be free to follow less-strict strains are no longer free to do so. (Iraq's Christian population - yes, there is one - is even worse off)
Bottom line: The U.S. should have committed enough force to Iraq to maintain order and control the borders. If sufficient force was unavailable, we shouldn't have gone to war. (a friendly, democratic, pro-U.S. government in China would be a very good thing for our national interests. Of course, we know full well the U.S. Army isn't anywhere near powerful enough to overthrow the Chinese government!)
The President's action has left America less secure, not more. This action stems from incompetence, either on the President's own part, or that of advisors he chose.
Given the serious consequences of this incompetence, President Bush has shown he's unqualified to hold his office. He needs to be replaced.
No, I don't believe the President or anyone else in Washington ordered these abuses or knew they were happening. Others disagree.
The abuses in this prison have done serious damage to relations between America and other countries, especially in the Arab world. This is a very serious incident.
Yet no high official has been called on the carpet.
In any other country, an incident like this would result in at least a reprimand for the Defense Minister (Secretary of Defense). Here, not even a word of criticism for Secretary Rumsfeld from the administration. No wonder many people (both here and in Iraq) believe these abuses were in fact ordered by Washington.
U.S.-Arab relations would not have been nearly as badly damaged if Rumsfeld had been fired, or at least censured.
© D. Smith W9WI 2009
Page created