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 at September 10, 2002 10:16 PM