09/10/2002 10:16:50 PM

Invading Iraq.

There's a lot of talk these days about the U.S. invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Here are some of my thought about it:
  • During the 1980's U.S. Presidents Reagan and Bush #1 helped arm Iraq to fight Iran and we could care less about any atrocities Saddam Hussein committed. What is the real reason for getting rid of Saddam Hussein now? See my weblog of July 1, 2002 for one possibility.
  • What happened to the principle of deterrence? For 50 years we held off the evil Soviet empire by threatening to retaliate if they ever used their weapons of mass destruction. It worked very well. Why won't it work with Iraq now?
  • What's the big deal about giving some evidence for the supposed Iraqi threat? For such an important issue, I don't buy this business that we "need to protect our sources".
  • Even if Saddam Hussein is as evil as we claim, in my opinion, unilaterally removing a head of state sets a bad precedent which will come back to haunt us eventually. It's kind of like killing someone who might be a murderer in the future; it might be the expedient thing to do at the time, but it's too easy to make a mistake. What will prevent any one country from invading another that it thinks will be a threat in the future?

    In general I think we as a country need to consider the long term effects of our foreign policy decisions. For example, looking back it's clear to me we would have been better off NOT helping the Talibian defeat the Russians in Afghanistan. The principal that your enemy's enemy is your friend does not seem to work very well in foreign affairs because situations can change too easily.


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments
comments powered by Disqus