Remember, let’s give peace a chance:
A little after that, I realized the best-case scenario was that Iraq II: The Phantom Menace would turn into another Vietnam. In other words, a long, drawn-out failure and huge loss of life for no real gain. Americans would be begging to get out, and their country would be internationally humiliated.
Yes, it’s just some loon ranting on the pages of the University of Alberta’s student newspaper. And, yes, probably the reason he lists that as the best case is because he clearly hates America and Americans with the passionate vitriol only college students can muster.
But, jeez. And yeesh. I hope Chris Rause at least has the decency to read his clippings a decade or two down the line and wince in shame.
(via Ghost of a Flea)
UPDATE: Of course, Rause may be channeling Scott Ritter.
But I’m worried that success in Iraq will lead the leadership to transport this idea to other regions of the world. Where does it stop?
According to the PNAC the AII (the folks in charge of foreign policy in the Bush administration since befor the election) , it ends after Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are taken out.
Frankly, I’d rather see those countries “taken out” (or their regimes toppled, to put it a bit less alarmingly) than see another 50,000 casualty war. Probably silly of me, I know.
But I don’t think it’s going to happen, conservative think-tank cabalistic plots or not. I think Iraq will be costly enough — in dollars, opportunity costs, world opposition, media opposition, and American attention fatigue — that even if it goes swimmingly and is over in a month, another war will not follow it, without some grotesque provocation on the part of the countries in question. (I also think it’s going to be expensive enough that, coupled with some dubious domestic policies, Bush may not get another chance, unless the Democrats self-destruct, which is always a decent probability.)
On the other hand, the mere fact of it having happened may indeed rattle the cages of the countries in question enough that they may fall apart, or reform, or revolt, or change because of it. Shaking up the status quo in the Middle East is a feature, not a bug.
I am not interested in living as part of the empire of the United States. Bad regimes should be discouraged in as many ways as are possible, but I’m not ready to have our forces be used to create an empire in our image.
We were not backed into this fight, regardless of how we feel about Sadam’s despicable regime. We have to wake up from the dream of a Star Trek world; world government is highly unlikely whether democratic or totalitarian. Diplomatic solutions always takes longer, and are more difficult to achieve. In fact, I have always belived that peaceful soluntions require greater sacrifices than war.
I agree. I also agree that war should be a last resort. I just differ with the opinion of some, evidently, as when we’ve reached that last resort — diplomacy is not always the final solution.
I have also noticed that peaceful diplomatic solutions require sacrifices that are often worse than those a war would require — after all, under (relatively) peaceful UN diplomatic activity, the Iraqi people got to enjoy twelve extra years of living under Saddam Hussein’s regime. A less “peaceful” solution in 1991 would have prevented that, at least.
I don’t know that I would use the word “often,” but certainly “sometimes” applies.
Neville Chamberlain might have some relevance to the “sometimes” part, too.
Using armed force should never be easy, or trivial, let alone preferred. But its potential use needs to be in the background in some cases — and that only works if folks actually believe you will use it.