After reading this article "US Lowers Expectations for Iraq" I got kinda pissed off. I never believed the arguments that Bush made for war and I still don't know how I feel about starting a war without provocation. Bush originally argued that Sadam had these weapons and the threat was that he would sell them to terrorists. When we didn't find the weapons, the argument was that we were liberating a country from a tyrant that had been killing off civilians and depriving them of freedom. The goal was to catch Sadam, restore their utilities, and lead them to a free, independent government with a self-sustaining economy. We caught Sadam, but that is where success trailed off.
We will begin to pull troops out of Iraq shortly, but what are we leaving? Their basic utilities are still worse off than when Sadam was in power. The insurgency is stronger than predicted. Now, we believe they will have an "Islamic Republic" rather than a true democracy.
I am not saying that we should've been more successful or that we should stay longer. But why aren't we questioning or holding the Bush Admin more responsible for leading the US into this war with little assistance and information that we now know is "gray" to put it nicely? I think that we need an independent investigation that results in more than a report that is discussed on the six o'clock news and forgotten. Although I don't like Bush, I don't think that a different President would've been much more successful. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold whomever accountable for spending that much of our taxes on a war with a poor plan and limited outside assistance. The bigger tragedy is what the Iraqi people have already had to go through and what they will be left to deal with.
I think that the hope is that if we leave, the insurgency will calm down because their goal is to get American troops out of Iraq. But I doubt that will be the case. There will be a country with profitable natural resources (oil) and different religious groups and a weak government and weak security. The motivation for gaining power will be very high.
I really want to know what other people think, so post some replies.
6 comments:
I was a supporter of the war when we first invaded Iraq. I believed President Bush when he said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. So I was upset when I learned that there were no WMD's, no imminent threat.
What scares me more though, is the refusal of the administration to admit that it was wrong. Instead, they tried to switch the whole premise of the war to "ensuring freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people" and hoped that people either wouldn't notice or wouldn't care about the switch.
This premise for war can be used on any non-democratic country in the world. If that is the true reason we are in Iraq, then we should also be in every other country in the Middle East.
Do I believe that every country suffering under despotism would be better off if America invaded and instituted Democracy in that country?
Yes.
Do I believe that we SHOULD invade every non-democratic country?
No.
The cost to invade a country simply to "promote democracy" or "end oppression" is too high, both in terms of tax dollars and American lives.
It seems to me that you are saying that Iraq is worse off now then before the invasion, and I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. You say that Iraq will have an "Islamic Republic" like it was a bad thing.
Remember that the United States is not a true democracy. We too are a republic.
And eventually the Iraqi people will be better off without despotism. Admittedly, it will take some time to build (or re-build) vital infrastructure and to regain stability. But in 10 years I think Iraq will be miles ahead, both economically and socially, than where they would have been under Saddam Hussein.
I still don't think that this progress justifies the invasion, but I do think it will help the Iraqi people.
I don't know if anyone here has heard of Leonard Pitts Jr., but his columns are usually a good indicator of what my opinions are.(In general as well as the Iraq war)
Read his columns if you want a more fleshed out opinion, and I'll just say that my opinion is the same as whatever he wrote.
I don't know if I fully explained why the article made me upset. I feel like we are being asked by the leaders of our country to accept less and less from them on Iraq's success. They realize we are going to have to pull out soon and won't receive the results we were told they would produce when they began the war. So I feel like they are trying to "warm us up" to the idea of mild successes.
The thing I worry about with the government is a battle for religious power. Not everyone in Iraq is Islamic, so an "Islamic Republic" can be dangerous.
I appreciate the comments kevin, but instead of saying "anyone hear", you can just say "you adam and mike" because I don't think there's anyone else out there.
As far as the administration scaling back its predictions, to me its the same old, same old.
There are so many more criticisms to make of the Bush administration that this latest one, although I agree with you that it is wrong, seems relatively minor to me.
I agree that an Islamic Republic can be dangerous, but I think it is the best choice out of the feasible alternatives. As the government has apparently just learned, it is impossible to change an entire culture overnight. It will take years and years of small steps.
Becoming a republic, any kind of republic, is a very important step.
Do you believe Iraq is worse off now than before the invasion?
It is too soon to tell if they are better or worse off. Right now, they are making good progress, but there are a lot of threats to their freedoms and security. For the average Iraqi, right now it seems like their life is worse off right now because many lack basic utilities and have a constant threat to their safety. It hopefully will improve to the point where they will be better off.
One of the hard things to judge is what most Iraqis' lives really are like and what their thoughts are. I am skeptical of the US media's coverage in portraying an accurate image.
Post a Comment