I would like to ask all those opposed to the war and now supporting Mr. Buchanan’s position to consider whether your opposition is truly to the war or merely to Bush.
Consider the following quote by Ulysses S. Grant.
“Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war, in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate war, pestilence, and famine than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is - oblivion.”
Winston Churchill’s Memoirs of the second World War Volume I, The Gathering Storm. Explains how in pre-war Europe much like now, in an open democratic society our biggest weakness is allowing our own domestic politics to weaken our resolve and to thwart our decision making capabilities. That is the sole point of terrorism, to foment domestic political opposition in the enemy country.
In the afterward to the abridged edition, written in 1955 in the thick of the Cold War, Churchill predicts that the Soviet Union will collapse on itself and the greatest crisis facing the West will be the Arab Israeli conflict.
And I doubt he foresaw the true role of oil at that point in history. It is no coincidence that Britain was the only major European state to actively participate in Iraq II.
Saddam and Al Qaeda are weak and non influential today only because they have been preempted, just like Milosevic. It is one of the supreme ironies of history and life that pacifism causes war.
As far as Iraq consider what the likely alternatives to going to war were.
Continued repression and mass murder by the Baathist dictatorship, which eventually with massive oil income and failing sanctions would have allowed Iraq to reconstitute itself as a threat to the region, perhaps with Uday or Kusay in power.
Or perhaps the fall of Saddam due to internal revolt of the Shia and Kurds, which would have involved a high intensity bloodbath that would make today's low intensity war look rather “civil” by comparison.
This probably would have also involved active military intervention by at least Turkey, Syria and Iran and perhaps non-local forces such as China, Pakistan, or Russia. So, if you think you can wish away the problems in Iraq by being anti-"neo-con", you are dreaming.
While the current situation is not perfect, in my view the world and the region are much better off since the US is attempting to manage the situation and trying to work toward some level of stability.
I also believe the Iraq War was necessary because it is in the national interest and the interest of the current Western led world’s political and economic order to position substantial ground troops in the region for the long term.
The presence of permanent US base’s in Iraq provide an adequate US military presence in the region to keep things in line without inflaming tensions like the Saudi bases did.
I don't know if you realize this but today there is not a single American troop or military facility in Saudi Arabia, a prime recruiting tool and supposed justification for 9-11 according to Bin Laden. Our primary air base has been moved to Qatar. Our ground troops and armor are based primarily in Kuwait and Iraq.
Because of Iraq II, we were able to remove one of the primary motivations for a Wahhabist revolution in Saudi Arabia. This was done under cover of the Iraq War to assure that it did not appear that Bin Laden had ordered us out, thus further enhancing his stature in the Arab World.
No I don’t like the war, call me a “neo-con” if you will. I have an eleven year old son and I would find my life not worth living if something ever happens to him. But I don’t believe we can use the rational of the pre-WWII isolationist and hope our oceans will protect us from the threats that we now face.
