Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Commenting to a comment to another blog

The Cunning Realist is a rare bird: a sane, well-argued conservative. In this post he admits the the utter clusterfuckness of our Iraq policy, and castigates the usual players for the failures. But he says he supported the original decision to invade Iraq, and does not say anything that would indicate that he now thinks that was the wrong decision. In other words, good idea, bad execution. (Kinda like our own milquetoast Democratic politicans.) A commenter (who identifies himself as a "true Wyoming Republican") takes him down beautifully on that score:

When will we get an unequivocal admission that the decision to invade Iraq was extremely unwise/short-sighted/ stupid (take your pick). Even if there had been a weapons program discovered and it was subsequently dismantled/destroyed, would the current situation on the ground be any different? Would the Kurds, Shites and Sunnis now be getting along, with no Sunni insurgency?? Would the U.S. not now be facing a long term commitment of money and troops? No, no and no. There is no way, by any reasonable standard, that Iraq (or the U.S.) is “better” off now without Sadadam. (and please don’t start talking about the 300,000 [?] Kurds that Saddam killed, and buried in mass graves. How many Kurds have been killed by the Turks?? Should we invade Turkey next?) And what about comments (from Sullivan) that “there's still a reasonable chance of a pretty depressingly illiberal constitution” What constitution? Illiberal or otherwise! As it stands now, it takes 2/3 of the voters, from just 3 provinces to vote down (reject) any “constitution” when it goes to a vote in October (that’s assuming that they can even come up with a “constitution”). Constitution my ass. Iraq will end up being run, the way it has always been run. The only difference is, the person with the most power will have a name other than Saddam Hussein. And for this outcome, the U.S. has spent (will have spent) the better part of a half a trillion dollars and lost (to date) close to 2,000 servicemen and women, as well as tens of thousands of seriously wounded.
When will people face this reality?

I think this is an important point: would the current situation be any better or more "worth it" if there had been biological or chemical weapons? If there had been some stumbling, inchoate, decades-from-completion nuke program?


Post a Comment

<< Home

see web stats