You know, it occurs to me that all of those who supported the war at first but are now against it (I'm looking at you, Mr. Kerry) have this credibility problem when it comes to honestly assessing our rush to war.

At this point, Bush's only defense, the only rational defense, is to say that "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power." But is that really true? The answers were plain enough in September of 2002, but let's run through what we knew then and has been confirmed now:

Even if sanctions had not weakened Saddam's armed forces, surely the no-fly zones which comprised a good third of Iraq had, in fact, prevented him from attacking any other country. You know the old saw, "you can't argue with success?" Apparently you can if you're fixing to invade Iraq without a good pretense.

Osama Bin Laden, an enemy of Saddam Hussein, had no ties with the Iraqi government. Kind of a no-brainer, if you knew anything about Al-Qaeda's philosophy.

Saddam had never, nor was even able to give terrorists weapons of mass destruction. Again, if you knew anything about how Iraq and Al-Qaeda operate, respectively, this is pretty much plain as day. Now, there is a meme going around about how Saddam did, in fact, support terrorism by "giving money to suicide bombers." Actually, Saddam gave money to the families of suicide bombers. Not quite the same thing as giving people money to kill themselves and others, but at least you can corral the words "Saddam Hussein" and "suicide bomber" into the same sentence, which is always useful. By the way, I know that even my Zionist readers will concede that giving money to the bereaved family of a fallen Intifada soldier qualifies as a <i>zakat</i> in the eyes of many Muslims. It was a PR move, not some international war game. Kind of like when Saddam had a Koran written in his own blood or when he penned a popular romance novel.

If Iraq's link to terrorism was tenuous before, the U.S. invasion became a self-fulfilling prophecy when we invaded. Not only did we create a brand new militia armed with Iraqi army-issued guns and ammo, but we walked right into the Arab conception of the U.S. foreign policy as a Crusade. Which, incidentally, it is. Just ask George W. Bush.

That's just the invasion of Iraq up to Saddam's deposition. Now, as I have pointed out before, we're running the world's largest training camp for terrorists and we've basically guaranteed a civil war will erupt as soon as we leave (or sooner, weather and rigged elections permitting). I know some of you may be skeptical about the terrorists-in-training point, but consider this: where will those "international fighters" who entered the Iraqi theater after the U.S. invasion go when they're finished with Iraq? If Afghanistan is any indication, they'll use their training to form more effective terrorist organization. Oh, but don't worry, we won't be leaving Iraq for some time, so this is just another one of our mistakes which will take a few years to bite us in the ass.

Then we come to how this war has affected our relations with the rest of the world. Anyone who has been out of the country recently is well aware of the problems America is having. Imagine, there was something we could do to make us <b>even more unpopular than we already were around the world!</b> Did you even think such a thing was possible four years ago? I tell you, the Bush White house has some real talents there. And it's more than just people not liking us; Iran and North Korea are stocking up on nuclear weapons for that single universal good in the eyes of the international system, namely self-defense. To sum up this whole point, let me quote Tom Lehrer about nuclear proliferation in 1964:
block|
Egypt's gonna get one too,<br>
Just to use on you-know-who, so–<br>
Israel's getting tense<br>
Wants one in self-defense<br>
The Lord's our shepherd, says the Psalm<br>
but just in case–we're gonna get a bomb!<br>
<br>
Who's next?
|block
Honestly, I don't see how invading Iraq doesn't put pressure on the rest of the "Axis of Evil" in a bad way–an unmanageable way. As Kerry said, we took our eyes off the ball. And for what? A easy battle to wedge us into a war which everyone but the neo-cons knew was impossible to win?

A lot has been said about how the U.S. must show strength to combat terror, because any perceived would be grounds for another attack. Well, we didn't have a weakness in Iraq. We were containing Saddam. He wasn't a threat to us. Of course, what the Pentagon did when rounding up "evidence" to supposrt our going to war, was to ask the intelligence services to provide evidence that Saddam was a threat, not to provide actual intel about Iraq. Ask and you shall be answered, but there's no way you can trust that kind of information! They requested faulty intelligence, and that's really at the heart of the matter.

O war supporters, ask yourselves honestly: when we threaten our enemies with the big stick of an army we like to wave around, do you think we're in a better position to use that power given our quagmire in Iraq, or a worse one, considering we are actually withdrawing from bases in other countries in order to focus on Iraq? Then ask yourself if the National Guard troops we're sending to protect the Green Zone might not be useful in case we're attacked at home again? Looks like the Bush administration are no Boy Scouts, because they can hardly be said to be prepared.