Why are we in Iraq?

[pmb]

I was reading an argument and somebody suggested that if we disagreed with the Iraq war that we contact our legislators and tell them that we disagreed with the policy behind it. The policy was named in this post "strategic preemption". But that's not right

Comments

[pmb]

I didn't! Sanctions and inspections (backed up with threats) were working, even if they aren't sexy. The example in that article is the one discovery of anything approaching chemical weapons, and it's nothing like what he was claimed to have, and it's basically a discovery of the stuff we sold him in the 80's.




I'm starting to agree with David Brin that the parsimonious conclusion is the same as the conspiracy whack-job's conclusion, and that's never comforting. But sure, so why are we still in Iraq?

[cubetime]

I didn't! Sanctions and inspections (backed up with threats) were working, even if they aren't sexy.

I didn't believe it either. But many of the administration may have either believed it, or deluded themselves into believing it. Congress seemed to have believed it a little. And evidently, some people (probably many people) believe the administration believed it. Or want to believe the administration believed it.

I didn't believe it because the more Saddam complied with the inspectors, the more obvious it became that he didn't have anything, and the louder the administration clamored, "The inspections aren't working. We must invade!" The inspections weren't "working" in the sense that Saddam was supposed to refuse so that we could use his refusal for the basis of an invasion. They had to invade before the inspections proved there wasn't anything there. (Why we were going to invade in the first place is a bit of a mystery. Dry run for North Korea? Oil? Handout to Halliburton? A bet? Something to subtle and sinister that no one has figured it out yet?)

But sure, so why are we still in Iraq?

"You break it, you buy it." And boy did we break it. For as bad as life under Saddam may have been, I think it's safe to say we've made things at least as bad, if not worse.

[pmb]

"You break it, you buy it." And boy did we break it. For as bad as life under Saddam may have been, I think it's safe to say we've made things at least as bad, if not worse.

Right. But do you think our continued presence will make things better or worse? I'm pretty sure it will just inflame tensions. We don't have the political will required to draft every able bodied young person into the army and ship them over to a desert country that is trying to tear itself apart. And failing extreme measures like that, I don't see how we can fix anything.

[pmb]

Why we were going to invade in the first place is a bit of a mystery. Dry run for North Korea? Oil? Handout to Halliburton? A bet? Something to subtle and sinister that no one has figured it out yet?

The best explanation I've gotten is that there was a diverse set of reasons that the evil henchmen wanted to invade Iraq, and the president wanted to do it because his dad didn't. But it's still frustrating that there does not seem to be an actual reason that we invaded. We have an excuse or two, but no real reasons.

Perhaps the takehome lesson is that it's not enough for people to agree on the action, they also have to agree on the action's goals. Otherwise when things start going poorly, everyone's reactions will be counterproductive and at cross purposes.