The fig leaf has almost slipped off
Apr. 27th, 2003 12:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoThe ABC News website reports that Administration officials are beginning to say privately what any objective person has known for a long time now: The war was mainly, "...a global show of American power and democracy."
Well, one out of two isn't bad.
Basically, the argument is that 11 Sept. 2001 "changed everything", and that the main reason the Administration played up the idea Iraq had WMD was because they wanted the votes in the UN, not because they actually believed it.
"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
Again, one out of two isn't bad.
A further argument is that...
Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States... The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.
Which would all be well and good except for the facts that a) the government we're about to impose on Iraq won't be democratic, b) if Iraq threatens to become democratic and respect its Shi'ite majority we're only going to send the troops back in, and c) we've given the entire Arab world even more cause to use terrorist tactics against us.
Other than that, I hope you liked the play, Mrs. Lincoln.
But, hey... at least they're scampering up to the edge of admitting they were lying about the WMD...
Well, one out of two isn't bad.
Basically, the argument is that 11 Sept. 2001 "changed everything", and that the main reason the Administration played up the idea Iraq had WMD was because they wanted the votes in the UN, not because they actually believed it.
"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
Again, one out of two isn't bad.
A further argument is that...
Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States... The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.
Which would all be well and good except for the facts that a) the government we're about to impose on Iraq won't be democratic, b) if Iraq threatens to become democratic and respect its Shi'ite majority we're only going to send the troops back in, and c) we've given the entire Arab world even more cause to use terrorist tactics against us.
Other than that, I hope you liked the play, Mrs. Lincoln.
But, hey... at least they're scampering up to the edge of admitting they were lying about the WMD...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-27 07:37 am (UTC)And at least a bunch of children were freed from prisons and adults were let out of underground dungeons and we know about all the mass graves and Iraqi citizens can speak freely without being killed.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-27 01:44 pm (UTC)And if I thought any of those things were a) intentional, or b) likely to last longer than somewhere between 6 months to two years, I'd give the Administration credit.
The trouble is, all the available evidence is that we invaded Iraq mostly to demonstrate we could invade Iraq. Anything else that happens, for good or for ill, is mostly beside the point. As far as Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al. are concerned, if any good comes out of it for the locals, mazletov, god bless... But it's not like it's the point of the exercise.
And I think the question of how long it will all last for the locals is a good and valid one. Look at Afghanistan. Karzai controls Kabul on a good day, and the rest of the county is mostly a confederacy of warlords who can move secure in the knowledge we won't lift a finger.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, we're just counting the days until some cognate of Marcos/Somoza/Pahlavi/Diem can be imposed on the country, whereupon we'll leave them to stew in their own juices... same as so many times before.
So, yes, all those good things have happened. For now. Accidentally. Until they get snatched away again.
I'm sure the widows and orphans of the Iraqi dead are so appreciative that they're getting this brief respite between tyrants.
Or, to put it a different way, one more along the lines of wisdom our parents taught us:
* I don't believe two wrongs make a right. I don't believe the repressiveness of a regime justifies attacking it on the basis of lies. If we had been forthright and honest about our reasons, that'd be one thing, but as it is...
* I also believe in the golden rule. And I think that attacking another country on the basis of lies opens us up to be attacked in the same way. Strangely, I think this is a bad thing.
Undoubtedly, this all makes me a bad conservative. But the kind of conservatism I practice -- duty, honor, country, faith, that sort of thing -- is what it is. And when an Administration besmirches those things pretty much because they're a bunch of overgrown teenagers who want to show they're the biggest, baddest bullies on the block... Well, I'm going to call them on it.
{shrug}