[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 04-21 21:26, Matt Gushee wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:22:06PM -0600, Sean LeBlanc wrote:
> Okay, I'm going to keep it short for once. First of all, I think it's
> much too soon to say there ain't no quagmire: our Anglo-American forces
> are quite a ways from controlling all of Iraq. And though I think you
> raise a valid question, from my point of view, the opposition to this
> war was never about whether we could win it in a strictly military
> sense, nor very much about the direct costs to us of that victory. It
> was about the (im)morality of killing Iraqi civilians. It was about the
> long-term political consequences, which we have not yet begun to feel.
> It was about the subversion of our democratic government in pursuit of
> dubious geopolitical objectives.
> 
> I certainly can't speak for all anti-war commentators, but to the extent
> I personally pushed the quagmire scenario, it was largely a tactical
> choice. The moral issues are of great concern to me, but my observation
> has been and continues to be that (for reasons that I don't understand
> at all) questions of morality and international law have absolutely no
> effect on some of the more dedicated supporters of the Bush program--
> whereas I could occasionally raise a significant doubt or two by
> suggesting we might be getting in over our heads.
> 
> In any case, I see no reason why our military success should affect
> anyone's concern, or lack thereof, over the more important issues.

That qualifies as short? ;) 

Good points. I had and continue to have my doubts about the means to this
end of liberation in Iraq. I didn't like the way the goal did some shifting
over time (probably after some focus-grouping, maybe). First it was WMD,
then liberation. And then there's the issue of acting pre-emptively. I'm
very concerned about this, make no mistake. 

I will say this, however: at least the government has at least paid lip
service (and I haven't seen anything to counter it so far) that this war
will be conducted in such a manner to minimize civilian casualties. 

> > So, I suppose the rest of the article artfully dodges the evidence of
> > terrorist training that was found? Or the al-Qaeda that came and fought the
> > coalition forces, despite what we were told about Saddam being despised by
> > al-Qaeda? Or the fact that Saddam *didn't* have the support that we were
> > told he had?
> 
> Well, you're a reasonably informed person. Don't you remember Osama Bin
> Laden's speech in which he expressed support for the Iraqi people while
> denouncing Saddam Hussein as an infidel? And haven't you heard the
> latest Iraqi protest slogan: "No to America, No to Saddam?" Is it
> possible that he meant, and they mean, exactly what they are saying?

I do remember that speech. But the fact is that al-Qaeda members came to
fight against Americans on the side of Saddam, correct? Maybe I got that
garbled. And what are the protestors protesting against, their own freedom?

I acknowledge that we have yet to pull it off, but our intentions as they
are being described are that Iraq will belong to the Iraqis. And that means
all that it should mean: the institutions as well as the resources. I would
hope that the protestors will get what they want if by "no to America"
they mean that they will themselves and own their resources. America isn't
in the business of setting up colonies. 

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at americanisp.net  
http://users.americanisp.net/~seanleblanc/
Get MLAC at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mlac/