Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)
The question making the rounds of Republican candidates for President in 2016 is whether they would have supported the war in Iraq. A common theme is that if we knew then what we know now, the decision would have been different. But here is the problem: Even if what we thought we knew then turned out to be true, the war was still a bad idea and should not have been fought.
Hindsight is always 20/20, and we may not know the real impact of the Iraq war for a generation. This is because the effects of that war are still forming and will be for at least the next few years. What we see in ten or twenty years may be completely different from what we see today. But if we're really interested in avoiding the mistakes of the Iraq war, we need to challenge the assumptions we (and I do mean we, because I was a supporter of the war from 2003 to 2008) made that led us into this armed conflict and "regime change."
The first faulty assumption is that we are supposed to be the world's policeman and that we should project American military power to restrain, punish or eliminate bad actors from the world stage. President Obama made the exact same assumptions when he used military force in 2011 to force "regime change" in Libya that President Bush made in 2002 and 2003. (Assumptions that were supported by Hillary Clinton.) That does not make us a nation or even a leader among nations - that makes us an empire. We should not be an empire.
The second faulty assumption is that Saddam Hussein could not be contained. We have dealt with evil regimes with weapons of mass destruction for generations, going back to the Soviet Union after World War II. We have never seen our enemies use WMD against us because they know the consequences of doing so would be too horrible to contemplate. Even if Saddam had or was seeking WMD (including nuclear weapons) he was not stupid enough to use them and bring the nuclear wrath of these United States down upon him.
What we should do is embrace nonaggression as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. War should only be used in the case of a direct attack on our national security interests, and even then it should always be the last resort. We had to go to war with Japan and Afghanistan, for example, because those nations directly attacked us at Pearl Harbor and in New York City. Iraq represented no such threat. Our war in Iraq was a preemptive war to stop a possible threat in the future, and now we are dealing with the consequences of that decision.
If we want to repeat the mistakes of Iraq, looking at it through the lens of hindsight will never accomplish that goal. Only by completely changing our perspective, our assumptions and our basic foreign policy strategery can we avoid making that same mistake again.
Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.
- A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.
- This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.
- Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
- You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.
- Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.
Thank you for your cooperation.
, Mike Newton said...
Republican leaders love war and a muscle-bound military. They waste billions on vehicles and weapons the Pentagon seeks to reject, ignoring the commanders, when we already spend more on "defense" than the closest top-ten nations combined. They crave constant war and will never relent as long as the Stupid Party survives. Of course, their own sons won't be sacrificed on any battlefield, nor will they spend a cent on benefits for wounded veterans who "act entitled," hobbling home without their arms or legs. A party to be loathed and viewed with abject shame.
, MonroeCountyConservative VoteConservative said...
Well Mike Newton, it seems that Democrats are too stupid to recognize that Bush's foreign policy is Hillary's foreign policy. It is the same Middle East foreign policy of the 1980s. Put simply it is the failed policy of "DESTABILIZATION" rebranded as the War on Terror.
When you destabilize a nation or a region you take them back to the stone age. You then get to watch radicle Islam rebuild tribal alliances until at some point they become Al Qaida or ISIS or any number of variations there of.
Their power is NOT defined by how many Kurds or Christians they kill or women abused, nor is their threat level defined by secular strong men like Gaddafi, Assad or Saddam.
The threat is not even to the United States per sa. Rather it is a threat defined by the world market price of oil and natural gas and how effectively they can pump oil out of the ground.
That threat is the threat to "high oil and gas prices", and in particular, should these nations decide not to use the US Dollar as the preferred reserve currency and medium of exchange they will be accused of having a chemical weapons or nuclear program as an excuse to take them back to the stone age.
At which point we will begin again a cycle of destruction so to prop up the global price of oil and natural gas.
It is why the foreign policy never changes between Republi-crat and Demo-publican Presidencies. . It is the foreign policy of BP and Royal Dutch Shell.
Only a Democrat would not recognize this. But you are correct that there are a lot of stupid liberal NEOCON Hawks too.