There is a great deal of criticism against the war in Iraq, and the war on terror. In addition to ''Bush lied'' and ''where are the WMD's?'' it is frequently offered that America trained and equipped Saddaam Hussein in the 1980's. Why did the US remove a dictator it once supported and replace his government with a representative democracy?
James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, stated the following at a teach-in at the University of California at Los Angeles on April 2, 2003:
Yes, it's true. We did. We certainly didn't put in Saddam, the Ba'athists did that on their own. But we did back him in some limited ways in the 1980s in the war against Iran. He represented himself to be, and the Reagan administration at the time felt that he was, essentially, the lesser of two evils. And what was weighing on American minds very heavily then was the Iranian revolution of 1979, and particularly the seizure of the American hostages, which absolutely enraged this country. And I think enrages a lot of people here still, and is a rather major barrier to an understanding to the American and Iranian people, which is something I would very much like to see take place.Woolsey makes a good point. National interests change, alliances change.But, yes, we backed Saddam in limited ways, mainly with intelligence information against Iran during the 80's war between the two. But that shouldn't mean that when we come to our senses we can't take a different tact. Whether it was wise or unwise to back him, I think it was unwise, that doesn't mean that we are forever locked into the proposition that we have to back Saddam Hussein.
During the Cold War foreign policy was a chess game between the Soviets and America. During this period each side supported its surrogates, and in some cases they were dictators or insurgents.
For example, during the Reagan Presidency the Contras in Nicaragua were supported to block Daniel Ortega's Sandinista socialist movement. Presidents Carter and Reagan both supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in order to prevent Soviet success there. The Taliban may have even been supported, at least in principle.
After the fall of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing mujahideen warlords. The Taliban eventually emerged as a force able to bring order to the country. The rise of the Taliban helped the economy by eliminating the payments that warlords demanded from business people; it brought political benefits by reducing factional fighting (although the Taliban fought aggressively against its enemies, its relative hegemony reduced the number of factions); and it brought social benefits by imposing a set of norms on a chaotic society. The Taliban enjoyed considerable support from Pashtun Afghans and from Pakistan. The United States hoped that the Taliban might push the warlords to resolve their differences and chose a ''hands-off'' policy. Although the radical ideology of the Taliban would later alienate many, several observers initially considered its emergence as a positive development.Perhaps there were hopes for the Taliban at some point, but once the 9/11 terrorists were traced to Afghanistan, the Taliban became America's enemy. Again, national interests changed. The US went to war and drove the the terrorists and the Taliban from the country.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Thad Anderson
Once Bush is out of office in 2009, and people don't feel the need to stand by the guy the voted for, I honestly believe that the "Bush Doctrine" will be remembered in the same breath as Watergate. In the words of the intelligence officials of one of the only major allies we still have in Iraq, the Bush administration "fixed" the intelligence to get the results it wanted. You just can't claim to promote democracy and justice at the same time you're lying to your own people about who was involved with the 9/11 attacks, and about what kind of WMD evidence we have.
Moreover, I can't imagine that anyone is going to want to associate themselves with a doctrine named after Bush after January 20, 2009 (with the possible exception of the bloggers who claimed the Duelfer report supported the arguments for invading Iraq.) I think the post-Bush political climate is going to be characterized by a very no-nonsense, honest approach. Incessant bitching about the media for doing its job, instead of showing purely "good" news, is not going to be good enough to maintain support for a $200 billion invasion with constantly changing justifications (actually, as of this week, 53% of Americans believe Iraq was a mistake, and that's even without the Downing Street Memo getting the play it deserves).
Cutting taxes while you're increasing spending will go out of style, as we try to deal with our budget deficit. Some people will miss Bush's optimism, if that's the word, I'm sure. But we're going to have to drink a lot of black coffee to get rid of the Bush Hangover.
2 - Marc
"Incessant bitching about the media for doing its job, instead of showing purely "good" news, is not going to be good enough to maintain support for a $200 billion invasion with constantly changing justifications."
Thad could you please educate us and list what justifications were changed?
3 - Nancy
Well, lessee...first it was WMD. Those turned out to be fictional. Wishful thinking on the part of BushCo. Next, it was Saddam was in cahoots w/bin Laden. That turned out to be a lie, & our boy Hussein seems never to have met bin Laden. Next, it was Iraq had biological weapons. Oops - couldn't find those, either. Next, it was enriched yellow cake from Sudan. Nope, sorry. Wrong again, honey. So NOW its one that's harder to disprove, we're sending our troops to get slaughtered in order to foster democracy and freedom for the Iraqis. Most of whom (according to recent inquiries by various parties, American & Arab) seem to wish we would just leave now, thanks, and close the door when we go. But we can't do that, y'know: we gotta stay the course (whatever that means).
How's those for some good starters?
IMO, if Bush was so damned concerned about freedom & democracy for Iraqis, he should have gone over there himself and run for President of Iraq, not the US. The latest laughable fabrication of BushCo was voiced last week by Porter Goss, that 'we know exactly where bin Laden is, but we respect the sovereignty of foreign powers too much so we currently aren't able to get him.'
!?!??!?!?!?!! Respect the sovereignty of foreign powers? Who? BUSH?! I don't think so, if the unilateral invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq (the latter totally unsupported by any of our normal allies, including as it now transpires, the UK) are any indication. Furthermore, not to smear just Bush w/that one, because I can think of no administration in the history of this country that has ever respected the sovereignty of any foreign power where it didn't suit their taste. Meddling in other people's lives & governments has always been a perogative the US has reserved to itself.
Back to Bush. I sincerely hope, Thad, that you are right, but I doubt the GOP will revert to sanity once Smirk is out the door. The Neocons have the bit in their teeth now, and will not let go without a fight, and frankly they have proved they are far more likely to win, since they have absolutely no morals, ethics, or reservations about who or what they have to destroy in order to gain their goals, including their own supposed party. Kind of like cancer cells in a healthy body.
4 - Thad
"Thad could you please educate us and list what justifications were changed?"
I love the way anyone who does their job as a citizen, and reads up an anything, and is an "elitist" as soon as they disagree with Bush, but he never is, even though he went to high school at a Massachussets prep school and then went to Yale twice.
Do I really need to rehash the history of the invasion of Iraq again? Last night's speech should refresh the whole Iraq-9/11 link argument in the minds of some of the "he never linked Iraq and 9/11" crowd.
The post above sums it up well, although the Iraq-9/11 link argument was used intermittently throughout the buildup to war, begin on the very afternoon of 9/11, when Rumsfeld starting trying to link the two. The 9/11 Commission report has a lot of info on this, too.
http://www.911commission.gov/
5 - Raj Chanani
How much of this is accurate information? It seems like things are being streached.
Middle East vs United States I 1990
United States vs Middle East II 2005
Are there more such wars possible?
6 - Paul2
The article includes many false and wrong assumptions as has been noted above. Therefore the conclusions are wrong as well.
The US goes to war to achieve economic and political hegemony. "Blossoming democracies" are just a virtual side dish presented by the gov't to make the whole war business easier to sell.
7 - Raj
There are basic philosophical problem with Christianity as with any religion or philosophy.
For instance, "Thou Shalt not kill" and there you have European and American forces killing people in soverign terroritory.
8 - Norm
I thought this might be of interest. Possible scenarios of future wars.
9 - Norm
Possible future maps of the world.
World Map Future 1 - 50 Million Years from now
World Map Future 2 - 100 Years from now
World Map Future 3 - 200 Years from now
10 - Raj Chanani
Africa seems confused?
China -->> Li Ki
India -->> Ramayan Mahabharata Rig Veda
Europe -->> Bible
Middle East -->> Quran
Asean -->> Pali Cannon
Does Africa have a book of stories??
11 - Raj Chanani
Do the Law books work the same way?
Pure Fiction
I hear that the DOD can sort out DOJ.
12 - Philosophy
We are the same yet different.
Some events are more probable while other events are less probable.
Alliances are created to acheive shared goals subsequently new alliances are created.
The truth is fluid, ever changing, ever the same, like in a river.
13 - Think
Master the mind and you will win all of the heavens and hells.
Two sea turtles.
Religious texts are stories of a group of people, not moral laws.
Small group of ever changing people that need to be normalized.
14 - Raj
United States vs. China I, Battlefiled Vietnam
United States vs. China II, Battlefield Korea
15 - Joe
We heard much of this same BS during the Clinton Era and how it was affecting national security. In my openion, the Bush Cheney administration have handled issues better.
16 - Spanky
Wait, there is more, I mean do you like me? I am not sure cause you know people said that, well you know...
Dont you?
17 - Basti
I wonder who blew up the world trade center and the Pentagon?
It was most likely one of these groups or a combination therin.
1) Americans
2) Arabs
3) Desis
4) Orientals
5) Aseans
6) Africans
7) Europeans
8) Hispanics
18 - Idea
Yama and Yami --> Adam and Eve
Kali --> Quan Yin --> Gaya --> Mary --> Parvati
Mythology, Religion, Philosophy, Science
19 - Job Title
Spiritual Representative
--------------------------
Jesus --> Christianity
Krishna --> Hinduism
Confuses --> Taoism
Muhammed --> Islam
Buddha --> Buddhism
20 - Definition
Terrorists -->> Soldiers from another country.
21 - Dan
Congratulations to the Military of various nations.
22 - Raj Chanani
Calls trace back to the offices of SJPD, SAIC, Calpine, Florida, homes in San Jose.
DOJ please assist SJPD in resolving issues with Justice. Have contated the UN to validate the American, Chinese, Indian government.
23 - ScooterChanani
Who the heck is "Raj Chanani", and what's his point?
24 - UN Rep
United Nations Agreemets and violations their in by the SJPD. The world works on very solid fundemental principles. UN must be allowed to invistiage the United Sates of Ameica and China and India. Non compliance will result in removal from the UNSC.
25 - War Senario
Country A -->> 5 Million sqm land, 100 million people
Country B -->> 10 Million sqm land, 50 million people
------------------------------------
Senario War 1
--------------
Country A -->> 6 Million sqm land, 95 million people
Country B -->> 9 Million sqm land, 45 million people
Senario War 2
--------------
Country A -->> 4 Million sqm land, 97 million people
Country B -->> 11 Million sqm land, 42 million people
Senario War 3
--------------
Country A -->> 8 Million sqm land, 90 million people
Country B -->> 7 Million sqm land, 40 million people
These are the results of the war. Our terroritory {country} has expanded {shrunk}. Our terroritory is basically {virtually} unchanged. We lost more {less} {equal number of} people.