Debate on the Iraq war (continued)

Here is the reply from the other person:
http://www.nonviolence.org/comment/viewtopic.php?t=535&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=420

So we should say we were wrong for overthrowing the Hussein regime and then leave it to the Iraqi people to defend themselves? There would be civil war and no hope for democracy if we leave now. I think we should finish the job by getting the government off the ground. Then, we can leave. When we leave, the bitterness resulting from occupation will dissipate and the Iraqi people will be greatful for what we did. I don't think that they could have ever pulled off democracy on their own when the Hussein regime was in power. That regime was just way too oppressive.
"War on Terror" is like "War on Drugs" (which is absurd) or "War on Poverty" (which is counterproductive). It is a government fight against things and not actual nations. We are at war with all international terrorist organizations, so we call it "War on Terror".
The Hussein regime was a threat. They tried to assassinate one of our former presidents, they expressed extreme religious (though not fundamentalist) hatred against us, they provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel (Who is Israel's equally hated biggest ally?), they took over a country for personal gain, and they supported Hamas and Hezballah. They had meetings with Al Qaeda representatives (What could that have been about? One thing.). Their WMD's were unaccounted for. They were very much a threat.
I know we allied with them. Sometimes we ally with bad governments because world politics is a game of finding the least of all evils. We teamed up with the Soviet Union to take down the Nazis, and it's a damn good thing we did. The fact that our government didn't speak against an ally's terrible gassing of Kurds didn't mean we condoned it. Things are more complex than that. However, the gassing of Kurds proved their terrorist ways, and when they revealed themselves to be a threat to us, the gassing was another brick in the wall of justification for overthrow.
I don't remember Bush trying to say that the Hussein regime was responsible for 9/11, and I watched the news constantly around that time. The Hussein regime had to go, and I don't think we should abandon the Iraqi people to civil war and permanent despair now.


Here is my reply to his comments:


Thanks for shifting the debate to some issues where we have some chances of agreeing on something!

"So we should say we were wrong for overthrowing the Hussein regime and then leave it to the Iraqi people to defend themselves?"
Reply:
The problem is you focus on one logic:
Saddam Hussein = Dictatorship
Dictatorship = Evil
Fighting Evil = Good
US overthrowing Saddam Hussein = Good
Therefore you limit the scope of the debate. Let us focus at the same time on this logic:
Iraq = Independent Country (from foreign nations)
Saddam Hussein = Iraqi Leader of that country
USA = Foreign Nation (from the Iraqi point of view)
US Army in Iraq = Occupation Army
Yes, the following question: "Was it wise to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein?" is determinant for a reply on...

"Should we leave it to the Iraqi people to defend themselves?"
Reply:
No, it was not wise to invade Iraq (because US was neither attacked nor under threat and Iraqis were not asking for help against Saddam Hussein), therefore the US rule of Iraq is not legitimate. Should the coalition forces leave as soon as possible?

"There would be civil war and no hope for democracy if we leave now. I think we should finish the job by getting the government off the ground. Then, we can leave. When we leave, the bitterness resulting from occupation will dissipate and the Iraqi people will be greatful for what we did. "
Reply:
By acknowledging the US-led coalition made mistakes by invading and occupying the country, the next US president could open the door to a "real dialogue" with the Iraqis on the future of their country. Did you notice that the Shia Iraqi community is increasingly angry and ready to fight the US occupation? They should be happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. Shouldn't they?
Next is the issue of the legitimacy of the transitional Iraqi government. It is fact that:
1> This government has no power over the coalition forces
2> This government is handpicked by the coalition and has not much legitimacy.
However, now that the coalition forces commit themselves to help organize elections, this wouldn't be right to withdraw as soon as possible ("cut and run..."). That doesn't mean these soldiers have some legitimacy to use the force against the insurgency and this is an important point! As a principle, the coalition should show that the Iraqis are in charge of their own safety, not a coalition of foreign troops. An ideal situation would be that the coalition become an "adviser" to the new Iraqi police and army. By the way, Saddam Hussein might be gone but many of his former civil servants have a key role in the "new Iraq". Then the "bitterness of the occupation" might dissipate...

"I don't think that they could have ever pulled off democracy on their own when the Hussein regime was in power. That regime was just way too oppressive. "
Reply:
Once again, this is not US business to rule over the democratic development of independent states! What should be US business is to protect US citizens from terrorist threats, to prepare for self-defense if US is attacked, and to help the international communauty (other nations) avoid humanitarian disasters and genocide.

"War on Terror" is like "War on Drugs" (which is absurd) or "War on Poverty" (which is counterproductive). It is a government fight against things and not actual nations. We are at war with all international terrorist organizations, so we call it "War on Terror".
Reply:
That's good fun to play with words! It would be nice from the Bush administration to let the world know about these rethorical subtilities though. When I look at the news every morning, I really feel like the US army is also confused about this. It looks like they are waging a "real war".

"The Hussein regime was a threat. They tried to assassinate one of our former presidents, they expressed extreme religious (though not fundamentalist) hatred against us, they provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel (Who is Israel's equally hated biggest ally?), they took over a country for personal gain, and they supported Hamas and Hezballah."
Reply:
Please remind me of the president assassination thing. I might have Alzheimer! I can't remember that. To be hated is one thing, to be an agressor is another thing. Now that we come to the issue of agressions on Israel, that would be useful if the US relationship with Israel was "free from bias". You see, when a country disobey to UN resolutions more than once, and when it attacks "terrorist leaders" in a foreign country, it would be nice that the USA joins the worldwide protest of the international communauty. This is not right to talk about "democracy" in the Middle East and then deny any explanations to these Arab states about the lack of respect for these principles from the Israeli government. Iraq's support of Hamas or Hezbollah was no more flagrant than the support from other Middle East nations such as Syria or Libya. Will the US invade these countries too. If the USA wants to be more "loved" by Arabs, why not showing more concern about "justice"?

"I know we allied with them. Sometimes we ally with bad governments because world politics is a game of finding the least of all evils. We teamed up with the Soviet Union to take down the Nazis, and it's a damn good thing we did. The fact that our government didn't speak against an ally's terrible gassing of Kurds didn't mean we condoned it. Things are more complex than that. "
Reply:
Thanks for that comment. It's exactly what I think with one little difference. Because "things are complex", you cannot expect to justify an invasion and occupation by saying "this is a bad political regime, let us free them from this evil". Your comment is typical of scepticism when taking the decision to go to war. Follow this logic and review all your past assertions. The fact that "things are complex" doesn't mean we shouldn't give up on ethical principles. It's exactly the opposite. It is the first step for understanding non-violence.

"However, the gassing of Kurds proved their terrorist ways, and when they revealed themselves to be a threat to us, the gassing was another brick in the wall of justification for overthrow. "
Reply:
Wow! What a weird short-cut to justify a war! The gassing of kurds was an explicit human right violation (and what a big one). It should have led the US to protest straight away and condemn the Saddam Hussein regime for these acts... not 15 years later! "They" (the Saddam H. regime) didn't reveal themselves to be a threat to the US. This is a fact. It's time to move on.

"I don't remember Bush trying to say that the Hussein regime was responsible for 9/11, and I watched the news constantly around that time. "
Reply:
"the tortuous - and still unproven - attempts to establish a chain of events from Sept 11 to him": New Strait Times - Malaysia - Sep 06, 2002
"The FBI's first lead investigator in the case, Jim Fox, concluded "Iraq was behind the World Trade Center bombing." There is also the fact, first doubted but now confirmed, that 9-11 ringleader Muhammad Atta did indeed meet with Iraqi intelligence agent Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in Prague in April 2001.": Jerusalem Post - Israel - Sep 09, 2002
"Vice-President Dick Cheney led the field with doomsday warnings that the Iraqi leader could mount a September 11th-style attack on the US.": Financial Times - UK - Sep 09, 2002
"The US's move against Iraq follows from its new national security strategy, issued on September 17 last year, and the suspicion that Saddam was involved in 9/11.": Canberra Times - Australia - Feb 22, 2003
"Millions of Americans already believe that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11 because statements by Bush have juxtaposed the Iraqi leader and the terrorist attacks over and over again.": Washington Post - USA - Mar 19, 2003
I think that's enough evidence!

"The Hussein regime had to go, and I don't think we should abandon the Iraqi people to civil war and permanent despair now."
Reply:
Same argument than before (Once again, this is not US business to rule over the democratic development of independent states, etc.)
_________________Sailom