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?
If all goes well, and in a few years we have sent Iraq on its own way as a free nation, well on its way to prosperity, there will be twenty million people who will have us to thank for it, people controlling a rich nation in the heart of the Middle East.
Before, we had an implacable enemy of America and Israel, flush with oil wealth stripped from his people, to be used for whatever rotten purpose he cared to.
I would call that at least a slight improvement in the strategic situation and our own security.
Current Events » in reply to The big picture
re: 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