Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been whining about the idea of America being the world’s police. Their argument is that the world is a big and dangerous place, and that America can’t waste its limited resources on protecting random countries from one another or themselves.
This position has gained a lot of popularity lately, especially since July of 2006, when many deemed the current Iraq disaster a civil war. For a long while, I questioned the Iraq policy. Why should America “police” the world? After all, in the end, only one thing can happen. Eventually, something will go wrong in the country we're protecting, and we will be blamed for it by local politicians so that they can save their own backsides from political damnation. This was my line of thinking for the last few months – that is, until the Democrats starting bringing up the idea of intervening in the Sudan.
Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about. Democrats have been speaking up about the genocide in Darfur as if it were critical to US national security. One small example of this sudden urge by Democrats to police the Sudan was seen in a demonstration held by New York Congressman Charlie Rangel in July of 2004 which led to his arrest. There are a litany of examples of Democrats supporting intervention in Sudan. Buy why?
I don’t want to drag this blog out longer than it needs to be, so I will get to the point. Here are a list of reasons that make the genocide in the Sudan relevant to American national security.
…yep that’s about it.
Here are a list of reasons that made Iraq relevant to American national security in 2003.
• Saddam Hussein – this man was more dangerous than Osama bin Laden in 2003. Why? Keep reading.
• Fear of a WMD program
• Failure to comply with UN weapons sanctions
• Connections to terrorism. Don’t pretend they didn’t exist. Al-Qaeda isn’t the only terrorist group in the world.
• The fact that Saddam was still in power in 2003 weakened America. It showed that we were not willing to backup our word against a vicious dictator. That was especially dangerous in a post-9/11 world.
• Saddam’s track record. Everything about Saddam was bad. At the time, he was the only world leader in power that had used WMDs. He was one of only a handful who we believed had a WMD program. We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make me argue this one. Read a book. Perhaps the most insane of all the things Saddam did was during the first Gulf War. For those of you who can’t remember that far back, Saddam shot SCUD missiles at Israel after America started repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He did this because he was afraid he was going to lose power and hoped to divert attention by coaxing Israel into a war. If Israel attacked Iraq, every Arab country would join the war on his side, and he…well, he was a crazy SOB.
• Also, don’t forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US…at least according to Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard.
• Then there was the whole trying to assassinate Bush 41.
I think you get the idea. Saddam was bad. I wish WMDs hadn't been hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because they were only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy.
By contrast, the Sudan has been moving closer to mainstream circles since they banished Osama bin Laden from their country in 1996. You can read more about it here.
The whole situation just baffles me. Democrats keep making statements lie: “I knew invading Iraq would only make Muslims hate us more. It was so obvious that this would happen. Bush doesn’t understand the nuances of the situations.”
I hate to break it to you, but the Sudan has all the negatives of Iraq, and none of the positives. I already listed all the reasons to invade Iraq (none of which apply to Sudan), but the similarities in the negative aspects of these two countries is eerie. Here is the short list: