Dr. B's Finest Kind Medical clinic and Fish Market

Volkh conspiracy wants pro war bloggers to answer three questions. Fine. let's see.

One:  First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

Anyone watching the propaganda in the news at the time Bush was preparing for war would wonder where the American press was. Like Gulf War I, the propaganda was mainly spin.

The real question was rarely discussed: will the world let such a dangerous dictator stay in place? What will happen if the politically motivated oil shortages happen again?

And if the UN is essentially a paper tiger, should we Americans  allow a vacuum of power in the world, that could  be filled by oil rich fascist states that use religion as a smokescreen to export their fascist ideas and develop nuclear weapons?

And when there are a dozen such dangerous states, which one do we actually have a "paper" reason to fight first (in Iraq, they violated the cease fire with us in many ways, so we did have paper cover to start the war).

So we started the only war that we had legal reasons to start. And by doing so, we essentially show a growing fascist movement that they will be opposed if they try to go furthur, i.e. Hitler stopped at the Sudentanland.

The second question: what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

The answer is: been there, done that.

6000 people were kidnapped in South America last year, and half a million people in Colombia have been displaced. Those kidnapped in the last few years not only include American businessmen, but a French born presidential candidate, a bishop, an entire church congregation, several missionaries, etc. One presidential candidate was killed a few years back, and several planes crashed due to bombs.
But it just doesn't get publicity, even though FARC is funded via american Druggie dollars.

Dsepite all this, the Colombian people still manage to hold presidential elections.They prefer democracy, even when past "cease fires" allowed previous guerilla leaders to join in the elections, they were not voted in.

(David Brooks makes a similar argument  about El Salvador: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/opinion/28brooks.html?ex=1097035200&en=3c5c4994bf0ae754&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1 )

And what is the alternative? Giving into thugs doesn't lead to stable humane governments either.

When I served in Africa, a full blown civil war was "lost" to similar terrororists. The result is the starvation and terror in Zimbabwe.

And yes, I remember Viet Nam...but I also remember the boat people, the Chinese ethinic cleansing of that country, the persecution of the Hmong, and the ten million dead Cambodians whowere killed because we left a political vacuum that left the bad guys do their thing without opposition.

Does anyone really feel we want to leave a similar vacuum in Iraq?

 Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

Actually, it's already a "success". Libya has changed. Syria is starting to cooperate with the US on the border, and Egypt is considering elections.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0927/p06s01-wome.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/539081.html

Democracy demonstrations in Iran are reported on the internet, and even the BBC noted that the government there is under power to change

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6334754

http://ahura.info/events/events.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/changing_face/default.stm

The dirty little secret is that we are fighting those who saw "Blackhawk down" and figure a few grisly murders will earn them an American pullout. But if we pull out, this will send a message like the one that Chamberlain sent Hitler: Do what you want, we won't bother you.

Do we really want these murderers to useoil money to get WMD, and fight? If they do, given the demographic changes in Europe and European history, I think Paris is in more danger than NYC. Think Charles Martel. Think the battle of Vienna and Leponto.

International law that refuses to take a stand has paralyzed the UN in Dafur, in Ruanda, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Chechnia, in Tibet...

If we are the only superpower, does that mean we also have responsibility? Or should we close our borders, take our weapons home, and ignore the lessons of history?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/09/19/do1902.xml

The movie High Noon explains the American position best.

The Gary Cooper character had cleaned up the town and was ready to retire. But then he hears some corrupt criminals are coming back. Now, if he leaves, they might stay peaceful or they might not. He argues that they will revert to criminality and take over the sheriffless town. The townfolks, eager for money and peace, argue he needs to leave and ignore it.

So instead he takes responsibility to oppose the "evildoers", against the public opinin of the town. He "preemptively"  stays in town to fight them. And they fight. And he (almost) loses, before he finally wins...but at the end, he grinds his star into the ground and leaves the ungrateful folks to their consciences.

So the Axis of weasles, wishing peace and oil money, don't want war, and brand the US as the troublemaker, ignoring the reality of the outlaw regiemes. And we are left fighting almost alone...and in a harder fight than if we actually had their help, which might have prevented the fight in the first place.

In the movie there is a peace candidate, who suffered so much in war that she became a pacifist, and who strongly opposes the fight...John Kerry as Grace Kelley (No insult intended) opposes the war.

But before the Eurowimps and the AlQuada figure they can have an easy "win" by regieme change in Washinton to a peaceful anti war candidate, I suggest that they watch the movie...especially the ending...

Kerry, too, confronted with a 3-11 type Madrid terror attack would be willing and able to revert to his warrior side.

And, unlike Bush, would have the country behind him in the fight.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this