"These threats could and should have been removed in their infancy, sparing mankind countless horrors."
One does not remove an ideology or a religion from the world via the initiation of force against governments that happen to formally adhere to such a belief system. This is especially the case for religions, which spontaneously arise from cultural evolutionary processes that among the more successful examples tend to favor self-propagation mechanisms (e.g. true believers motivated to form large indoctrinated families, to evangelize, and to be violently intolerant of those subscribing to rival belief systems) and thus can spread and sustain themselves even in the absence of support from political and economic institutions. Wiping out a state with violence doesn't wipe out a deeply-embedded culture that informed that state's particular brand of authoritarianism.
In most Mohammedan nations, it isn't safe to express an atheist or a gay identity, etc. even in the absence of any formal state enforcement of Sharia law. Even decades of colonial political control by various Western powers in many of these nations did little to make their cultures tolerant of such identities, and experiments in democratizing these nations have usually resulted in the election of Islamist political parties that enforce Sharia-like restrictions against various Western influences.
Even worse, attempting to wage a religious war or cultural war by military means only makes things more authoritarian in cultural terms, both in the countries being invaded and in the countries that are doing the invading. Neoconservatives, ever prone to embracing false World War II analogies, plainly failed in their attempts to replicate the German "deNazification" and "democratization" processes in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as the British Imperialists had failed to fundamentally transform Iraq and Afghanistan during the heyday of their empire (notwithstanding the fact that they had literally invented "Iraq" as a distinct polity in the first place). What they succeeded in doing was seriously eroding civil liberties in America.
Moreover, it was obvious to informed observers prior to the outbreak of the war that the primary goal of Neoconservatives was to seize control of Iraq's oil resources as a part of their broader strategy to assure America's unilateral dominance of the world via control of access to natural resources and technologies (which was outlined in their manifesto _Rebuilding America's Defenses_), as well as secure profitable oil concessions and arms contracts for their corporate supporters. Neoconservative incitement of fears of jihadist movements (which were absurd in the case of Saddam Hussein, a long-time secularist from a minority religious sect) and of non-existent weapons of mass destruction only served as a flimsy pretext to seek the regime change in Iraq that the Neoconservatives had been clamoring for at least five years. Eliminating jihadism was never a serious goal of the "war on terror" or the war on Saddam.
By the way, the Chinese Communist dictatorship was provoked into instituting a strategy of its own to break out of this attempted encirclement by securing its own maritime and overland links to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This has come to be known as the "Belt and Road initiative." The military contest implicit in the conflicting goals of these strategies, where each superpower fears being cut off from the world by the other's military in the event of a crisis, has the potential to incentivize an arms race, etc. and ultimately the outbreak of World War III in much the same way that fears of strategic encirclement were a major factor in sparking World Wars I and II. The unintended consequence of Neoconservatives attempting to dominate the world a couple of decades ago (while pretending to slay Islamic monsters) may well be the thermonuclear annihilation of our civilization.
Alas, the justification instead was "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!" Even as a kid I found this flaming hypocritical for a country with a nuclear arsenal and it never started to make sense to me.
Your rationale given for "going to war" with the addition of a summary of the history of the last 1400 years of the clash of civilizations, minus the hubris of "Steelman" is the best argument for not going to war. Islam is a strictly unreformed theocracy project, accurately described as tyranny and no imperial power has ever succeeded in "domesticating" it with "western liberal values" by force. Islam, the "most retrograde force on the planet" (Churchill's words - The River War,1899) and their lands should be avoided (not garrisoned) by the west, open for trade but immigration only for it's apostates. Reconciling that in secular western liberal democracies is now an existential conundrum.
As someone who supported the war at the time and readily concedes the mistake now, I rarely (never?) hear critics of the decision offer an alternative beyond don’t invade Iraq. At the time, we were imposing a very strict sanctions on Iraq in an attempt to prevent rearmament and perhaps cause an internal overthrow of Saddam. That sanctions regime was causing significant suffering within Iraq and was coming under strong opposition including from some allies. We were maintaining a no-fly zone over the southern third of Iraq in a belated attempt to prevent further genocidal actions by the Saddam regime in that area. And perhaps most significantly, we were providing security for a de facto independent Kurdistan in the northern third of Iraq—with a functioning government, economy and all that (and really pissing off a NATO ally, Turkey, at the same time). I don’t have any good answer myself, but it’s easy to oppose the invasion and quite a bit harder to grapple with a (politically viable) alternative. The best I can come up with is muddle through with the policies as they were and continue hoping for the Saddam regime to implode, but that’s a pretty lousy alternative too.
The main problem with the Iraq war was it was not thought out by adults. We should have taken out Saddam pretty much as we did and then taken out the mullahs in Iran and then helped set up Kurdistan as an outpost of decency and human rights in that region of the world. And then we should have largely exited the region, only steadfastly supporting the Kurds and occasionally bombing the Islamofascists if needed. No long term war. I think 6 months give or take could have done the trick.
Wow - that is one truly frightening speech. The sad and scary part is that it is easy to imagine anyone from the Uniparty giving nearly the same speech today (just swap Saddam with any of the Establishment’s favorite villains).
Iraq War most realistic steelman is either a) Philippe Lemoine's theory that the neocons felt like a newcomer in the prison yard in 2004 and picking up on the strongest guy established them as a bigger bully than Saddam, or b) that W decided to get Saddam because "he tried to kill my dad" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_cruise_missile_strikes_on_Iraq#George_H._W._Bush_assassination_plot), and family ties can compensate low social capital.
You'd have my vote after this speech. And the Churchill quote at the end reminds that once upon a time politicians could offer the cold harsh truth of reality rather than handouts, platitudes and faux cultural touchstones.
Is there going to be another speech from you on a way to live happily without fixing "Islamist tyranny"? Perhaps a speech which recognizes war is the result of revenge appearing as if it were really the first attack. And if occupation is not our goal, when the time comes where we are attacked to demonstrate a deterrence without it appearing to be revenge.
The Bush Admin. & Co. invaded Iraq and pretended they could establish a puppet state. This in a region that has seen over 3K years of such foolishness. Bush & Co. were not Alexander and his generals. It was stupid and probably instigated by Saddam Hussein's attempted assasination of Geo. H.W.Bush. The idea of guerilla war becoming a problem was well known to them. Still they persisted, the triumph of delusion over reality. They didn't follow the idea from Kenny ERogers's song of when, " to hold 'em and when to fold 'em".
The preferred term would probably be "islamist tyranny". That was usually the way to differentiate between Al Queda and the mosque down the street.
A distinction without meaningful difference, in both cases.
"These threats could and should have been removed in their infancy, sparing mankind countless horrors."
One does not remove an ideology or a religion from the world via the initiation of force against governments that happen to formally adhere to such a belief system. This is especially the case for religions, which spontaneously arise from cultural evolutionary processes that among the more successful examples tend to favor self-propagation mechanisms (e.g. true believers motivated to form large indoctrinated families, to evangelize, and to be violently intolerant of those subscribing to rival belief systems) and thus can spread and sustain themselves even in the absence of support from political and economic institutions. Wiping out a state with violence doesn't wipe out a deeply-embedded culture that informed that state's particular brand of authoritarianism.
In most Mohammedan nations, it isn't safe to express an atheist or a gay identity, etc. even in the absence of any formal state enforcement of Sharia law. Even decades of colonial political control by various Western powers in many of these nations did little to make their cultures tolerant of such identities, and experiments in democratizing these nations have usually resulted in the election of Islamist political parties that enforce Sharia-like restrictions against various Western influences.
Even worse, attempting to wage a religious war or cultural war by military means only makes things more authoritarian in cultural terms, both in the countries being invaded and in the countries that are doing the invading. Neoconservatives, ever prone to embracing false World War II analogies, plainly failed in their attempts to replicate the German "deNazification" and "democratization" processes in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as the British Imperialists had failed to fundamentally transform Iraq and Afghanistan during the heyday of their empire (notwithstanding the fact that they had literally invented "Iraq" as a distinct polity in the first place). What they succeeded in doing was seriously eroding civil liberties in America.
Moreover, it was obvious to informed observers prior to the outbreak of the war that the primary goal of Neoconservatives was to seize control of Iraq's oil resources as a part of their broader strategy to assure America's unilateral dominance of the world via control of access to natural resources and technologies (which was outlined in their manifesto _Rebuilding America's Defenses_), as well as secure profitable oil concessions and arms contracts for their corporate supporters. Neoconservative incitement of fears of jihadist movements (which were absurd in the case of Saddam Hussein, a long-time secularist from a minority religious sect) and of non-existent weapons of mass destruction only served as a flimsy pretext to seek the regime change in Iraq that the Neoconservatives had been clamoring for at least five years. Eliminating jihadism was never a serious goal of the "war on terror" or the war on Saddam.
By the way, the Chinese Communist dictatorship was provoked into instituting a strategy of its own to break out of this attempted encirclement by securing its own maritime and overland links to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This has come to be known as the "Belt and Road initiative." The military contest implicit in the conflicting goals of these strategies, where each superpower fears being cut off from the world by the other's military in the event of a crisis, has the potential to incentivize an arms race, etc. and ultimately the outbreak of World War III in much the same way that fears of strategic encirclement were a major factor in sparking World Wars I and II. The unintended consequence of Neoconservatives attempting to dominate the world a couple of decades ago (while pretending to slay Islamic monsters) may well be the thermonuclear annihilation of our civilization.
Alas, the justification instead was "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!" Even as a kid I found this flaming hypocritical for a country with a nuclear arsenal and it never started to make sense to me.
Your rationale given for "going to war" with the addition of a summary of the history of the last 1400 years of the clash of civilizations, minus the hubris of "Steelman" is the best argument for not going to war. Islam is a strictly unreformed theocracy project, accurately described as tyranny and no imperial power has ever succeeded in "domesticating" it with "western liberal values" by force. Islam, the "most retrograde force on the planet" (Churchill's words - The River War,1899) and their lands should be avoided (not garrisoned) by the west, open for trade but immigration only for it's apostates. Reconciling that in secular western liberal democracies is now an existential conundrum.
There were really two Iraq wars:
1. The highly successful invasion and overthrown of the government.
2. The dubious attempt to build democracy over the next decade.
One can support (1) while opposing (2).
Be careful what you break—you may not like what replaces it.
As someone who supported the war at the time and readily concedes the mistake now, I rarely (never?) hear critics of the decision offer an alternative beyond don’t invade Iraq. At the time, we were imposing a very strict sanctions on Iraq in an attempt to prevent rearmament and perhaps cause an internal overthrow of Saddam. That sanctions regime was causing significant suffering within Iraq and was coming under strong opposition including from some allies. We were maintaining a no-fly zone over the southern third of Iraq in a belated attempt to prevent further genocidal actions by the Saddam regime in that area. And perhaps most significantly, we were providing security for a de facto independent Kurdistan in the northern third of Iraq—with a functioning government, economy and all that (and really pissing off a NATO ally, Turkey, at the same time). I don’t have any good answer myself, but it’s easy to oppose the invasion and quite a bit harder to grapple with a (politically viable) alternative. The best I can come up with is muddle through with the policies as they were and continue hoping for the Saddam regime to implode, but that’s a pretty lousy alternative too.
If you want a real defense of it by a serious intellectual, Christopher Hitchens would do nicely.
The main problem with the Iraq war was it was not thought out by adults. We should have taken out Saddam pretty much as we did and then taken out the mullahs in Iran and then helped set up Kurdistan as an outpost of decency and human rights in that region of the world. And then we should have largely exited the region, only steadfastly supporting the Kurds and occasionally bombing the Islamofascists if needed. No long term war. I think 6 months give or take could have done the trick.
Wow - that is one truly frightening speech. The sad and scary part is that it is easy to imagine anyone from the Uniparty giving nearly the same speech today (just swap Saddam with any of the Establishment’s favorite villains).
I don't think anyone would endorse this. Are you saying that this argument would make Iraq war acceptable to anyone?
See https://polsci.substack.com/p/the-great-chess-board for an idea of how US foreign policy establishment perceives the world before the loonies took over.
Iraq War most realistic steelman is either a) Philippe Lemoine's theory that the neocons felt like a newcomer in the prison yard in 2004 and picking up on the strongest guy established them as a bigger bully than Saddam, or b) that W decided to get Saddam because "he tried to kill my dad" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_cruise_missile_strikes_on_Iraq#George_H._W._Bush_assassination_plot), and family ties can compensate low social capital.
You'd have my vote after this speech. And the Churchill quote at the end reminds that once upon a time politicians could offer the cold harsh truth of reality rather than handouts, platitudes and faux cultural touchstones.
I know this won't make me popular around here, but what a total load of crap
Wow.
Is there going to be another speech from you on a way to live happily without fixing "Islamist tyranny"? Perhaps a speech which recognizes war is the result of revenge appearing as if it were really the first attack. And if occupation is not our goal, when the time comes where we are attacked to demonstrate a deterrence without it appearing to be revenge.
The Bush Admin. & Co. invaded Iraq and pretended they could establish a puppet state. This in a region that has seen over 3K years of such foolishness. Bush & Co. were not Alexander and his generals. It was stupid and probably instigated by Saddam Hussein's attempted assasination of Geo. H.W.Bush. The idea of guerilla war becoming a problem was well known to them. Still they persisted, the triumph of delusion over reality. They didn't follow the idea from Kenny ERogers's song of when, " to hold 'em and when to fold 'em".