Arlo, leaving aside the discussion about the mistakes made in planning and implementing the Iraq War, and there has never been a war that was fought without mistakes, a compelling argument can be made that Saddam needed to be taken down, just as post-WWII historians have made compelling arguments that Hitler should have been forcibly confronted or taken down during the mid-1930s.
As has been revealed in recent weeks, Saddam deliberately attempted to deceive the west into believing he had active wmd development programs. The U.S. and its allies in Europe were more than willing to believe these deceptions because that fox had, indeed, developed them and used them in the past. That usage has been well documented, and is seldom disputed.
In addition, the man was a mass-murderer. Irregardless of the fact that he had been an ally of ours in the past, we should never suffer such a bloody tyrant to remain in power. I don't buy the argument voiced by some opponents of the war that these things aren't really any of our business, or that it isn't possible to police the world. To paraphrase a line from Charles Dickens, "Mankind is our business." Ignoring the evil such men do undermines any moral superiority we may lay claim to.
In the destruction of tyranny and madness I see no wrecklessness but a commitment to the ideals that this nation and its people have always aspired to. The arguments against intervention voiced by reasonable people which are based on fervent and genuine distaste for armed conflict, have been, unfortunately, undermined by the shrill rantings of a vociferous few that is fueled by their vitriolic hatred of the president....a hatred that, in many cases, dates all the way back to the hotly contested election of 2000.
As you can see from the points I've made above, I do not consider our efforts in Iraq to have been in vain, nor the price we have paid to have been prohibitive. While the lives of very real people are touched by the loss of each and every casualty, perhaps we need to stop, take a step back from the fray, and remind ourselves what heavy casualty rates can really be like. In the six years that we have been in Iraq we have suffered a little over 3,500 casualties. That is roughly half the losses we suffered in the single month it took to secure the island of Iwo Jima.
As to Obama's comments about Pakistan, I have to wonder exactly what it is he would do about that situation. Pakistan is a sovereign country that has cooperated to a great extent in the past. It has many problems to solve in tackling Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents within its own borders. Despite its support of us, they have shown a reluctance to allow large numbers of U.S. troops to cross their borders to assist them. Would Obama send the troops in anyway? He could activate the regular army units stationed in Europe and send them to Pakistan I suppose, but how would that fit his self-proclaimed image of himself as an opponent of interventionism?
Finally, when John McCain spoke of leaving our troops in Iraq for 100 years, he was merely using a little hyperbole to reiterate his strong support for staying the course until the job was done.
But I think you already knew that. Anyway, if the Republicans have been hijacked by extremists then the same might also be said for their democratic opponents.
Regards, Shuckins
