Marcia's thread up the page on Afghanistan was a useful reminder of the big picture. Iraq was portrayed as an action in support of the broader war on terror, and I think it's useful to keep the context in mind, and to judge any individual action against that "gold standard".
Certainly Saddam's treatment of his own people is irrelevant to the war on terror. Tragic, yes, but strategically important to the US? Certainly not in any tangible way.
The thing we need to stay focused on is the question of whether our security has been enhanced by attacking Iraq, and that remains controversial. All the threats portrayed by the Bush Administration were hypothetical, and that's why the question of where the WMD went to is a serious one. And if we keep the big picture in mind, are we in danger of losing what we gained in Afghanistan by becoming distracted by Iraq?
Some people believe that Bush wanted a war with Iraq to distract attention from the war on terror in general, and Afghanistan in particular. Now that Marcia's reminded me of Afghanistan, I have to say that it seems to have worked. We're sure all obsessed with Iraq, aren't we?
Current Events » in reply to I don't know. Do you know of any perfect governments on earth?
The big picture
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Christopher Hitchens again on Iraq
- Despite the short term Baathist revenge attacks, things are definitely improving in Iraq
- The last 4 paragraphs of the article you cited
- They have a lot of oil to sell.
- re: The last 4 paragraphs of the article you cited
- Well now that Iraq's oil wealth is no longer diverted to build opulent presidential palaces and filling up Baathist bank accounts...
- re: The last 4 paragraphs of the article you cited
- The last 4 paragraphs of the article you cited
- Despite the short term Baathist revenge attacks, things are definitely improving in Iraq