Monday, September 26, 2005

Our situation in Iraq made a lot of sense to me this morning

I am looking for a commentary to analyze and write about. I was searching on OpinionJournal.com and found this article written by Iraqs newly elected President Jalal Talabani.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007289

Now, my general political leanings is to support the more conservative side of our government, but I generally don't try to do it blindly. If I'm familiar with a topic, I will talk/argue about it. If I don't have a clue, I just shut up. Sometimes I also speak out about how "I" generally would like things to be.

Anyway, as I read this, a lot of our "reason" for going into Iraq in the first place started to make sense. After 9/11 and our commitment to fighting global terrorism, it made total sense to me for us to get into Afghanistan and rid the major area of ruling Taliban leadership, who was not hiding anything when it came to it's support of Al Qaeda. I think 99.9% of Americans were behind this move by President Bush. However, when we started making plans to invade Iraq, there were a lot of head scratching and immediate "Booooooos" from the liberal side of the political spectrum.

Generally, I think people saw this as another early 90's blunder in our first Gulf war, where many thought we were just protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for our oil gains (that argument is debatable). I know there were many issues surrounding why Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was at one time part of Iraq and he felt it (and it's rich oil) should be part of it again. In addition, he was wronged by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia relating to oil costs (can't remember the specifics), so he was upset and reacted. Not saying I don't blame him, but at least I see what he was doing. There was also that little fear of another WWII situation, where one country (Iraq) could be compared to Germany in that it had plans to eventually spread throughout and take over the entire middle east and eventually the world (much like the plans of Germany/Italy/Japan). Who knows if this was Saddam's intent. Maybe he DID just want what he felt belonged to Iraq all along?

Anyway, back to the topic. When we decided to head into Iraq, many on the left were upset. "No blood for oil" was the cry (and still is today), however, as I look at it and analyze the strategy behind it, it makes sense.

Some facts:

Iraq is and always has been the dominant country in the middle east. At one point in time, Baghdad was the most "learned" city in the world. It was the centerpiece for learning about medical and technological advancements. It still possesses many great qualities as it did in the past. Anyway, with that said, we (America/Allies) went into Afghanistan and kicked out the Taliban and helped to quickly establish a new/better/fair government for the people there. While we didn't accomplish our ultimate goal (find Osama) we still liberated many people. Women were actually allowed to hold jobs as Dr's and lawyers as they did in the past, people didn't walk around in fear of the Taliban men, who felt they had "rights" as men to do as they pleased.

Our next strategy was: OK, we didn't find Osama, however, where is the biggest threat of terrorism building up and what country could we get to become our allies quickly in helping to prevent the spread of terrorism (and joining the fight) in the middle east. Iraq.

See, during the 80's, America actually HELPED Iraq in it's war against Iran. Our special forces trained a lot of their replican guards and we aided them in many ways. Even after the Gulf War (which we quickly handed Iraq their asses on a platter, but didn't finish the job), we still had a lot of respect from Iraqis (even after our quick pull-out, leaving a lot of them half-liberated). We knew that we could go in and take over quickly (as we did the first time), help establish a democracy and have the most populated and strongest middle-east country on our side in the fight.

Well, we did move in, we took control quickly and got the government in their hands as quick as possible. Now it's our job to stand by and assist, helping them to establish their democracy and ways of protecting themselves. Once they are on their feet, we can have them by our sides fighting against terrorism.

I just don't understand (and if there are any liberals that read my blog, which I doubt) what the thinking is behind this? Sure, there are the scandals involving Haliburton or the "we just want to invade for oil", but can you not see that it is possible that by establishing a democracy in Iraq, it only benefits us in the fight against terrorism?

I hear some say, "let them fight it out themselves", well as the new president said, they had been in civil war for some time, but it was no use fighting because of how much power Saddam commanded. He had his republican guard and took GREAT care of them (feeding/paying them well) while leaving the rest of the people to fight with pitch forks and spoons and no ways of making money. You tell me how this is "naturally" going to pan out and the majority will win via civil war. I'm willing to bet that the lives lost in the 3 years of fighting there, saved many more lives that would have died in a civil war that would have lasted as it would have for centuries to come.

I'm glad we went into Iraq. I really feel we've done some good there in the fight against terrorism. I don't know enough about the conspiracies behind the "war for oil" or Haliburton, but like most government agencies (right and left) I'm sure there someone that is gaining out of this. You know what, I really don't care so long as it gives Iraq democracy quickly and it gives us another allie in the fight against terrorism.

Now someone tell me if/why I'm in left field on this.

5 comments:

  1. I think that was a great post Ty. I personally love the fact that there was such a huge amount of support to go into Iraq back when we first decided to do it. Now that it is taking some time and real effort- some want to change their minds. We cannot just pull out, like so many want to do. We have started something and can't just walk out of it. I do not understand that thinking at all- just leaving it half- a*@. I also think that it is interesting that so many people are calling out about the #'s of troops we are losing. If you think about the #'s of troops that have rotated through Iraq in the last 3 yrs, the death toll is nothing. The death toll for this war is the second lowest to only one other war- the Gulf War. As an Army Vet and also an Army wife, I feel it is our duty to support our troops and our mission. I feel that people like Cindy Sheehan are a disgrace. Her son chose to enlist in the Army (there is no more draft- so he wasn't forced) He was fighting for what he believed in and she is walking all over what he stood (and died) for. SHe may not believe that he died for this cause, but speaking as an Army wife, any soldier I know would be proud to die for their country.
    Brenna

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:49 PM

    First of all, where do you get that Iraq is the most powerful country in the middle east? Last time I checked, they were pretty powerful back in the day, you know like thousands of years ago when Iraq was called Babylon. Then they really did control most of the known world! But in most of recent history, they are a developing country with a crappy army. Before the first gulf war, they had spent years and years fighting Iran, and they couldn't win! Even with help from the land of the free and home of the brave, they couldn't beat Iran. I would have to vote that Saudi Arabia is much more powerful in the middle east than Iraq. Their oil revenues are much bigger, and they are much richer. Israel is even more powerful than Iraq, (mostly because they can do no wrong because we like them and give them nice presents like helicopters and tanks they use to kill Palestinian "terrorists.") I believe that the war in Iraq more than anything, including oil, freedom, democracy or anything is one big rhetorical exercise to give us something to rally behind the president about. He makes us afraid of the threat of terror, and we will support anything he does in the name of ridding the world of the evil freedom haters. Don't think that I'm just another liberal hating the president, before the war started I was a republican! I started looking at both sides of the issue for a report, and I couldn't find very many good reasons (like almost none,) to go to war with the people of Iraq. That's all!

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's cool Mr. Anonymous (by the way, don't be afraid to leave your name here, I'm not going to attack you). I appreciate your reply to what I wrote, but you never really refuted any of my facts.

    The fact is, Iraq IS/Was a powerful country. They harbored terrorists. We didn't like that, so we go into liberate their people, get them on our side (when I say our, I say our allies in the area that does include Saudi Arabia, Isreal, etc.) Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Lebannon, etc. are still dangerous countries, but if we get the country in the middle of it all (Iraq) on our side, then we have a better fighting chance when the shit hits the fan and we go into places like Syria, Lebannon, and possibly Pakistan and Iran (although both have pretty stable governments that claim they are against terrorism).

    I know you have some points/reasons to hate Bush. Like I said, I'm not in 100% trust of the person (but that is how I feel about pretty much every politician). Still, I am trying to look at the good in all of this. If you read the link, the president (who was voted for by the people of Iraq) has said his people are happier. Does that not make you feel a little better about the situation?

    You called this war a big "Rhetorical Argument" for us to rally around the president? What exactly are you saying? What is the reason we went into Iraq then? Do you honestly believe it was for "oil" or for "Haliburton". I HIGHLY doubt this was the main reason for war. Bush is not a person that get's giddy over deaths. I don't see anyone in our political representation that I would say is "giddy" over people dieing (yes, even the liberals).

    Anyway, thanks for replying (whoever you are). I honestly appreciate you taking the time. Just curious what you really feel about the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Brenna. Like I said before, no matter what war we go into, weather I support it or not, I'm always in full support of our soldiers. A good soldier is diciplined and does what he is told to do, even if he disagrees. I respect someone with that attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:05 PM

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

    ReplyDelete