Okay, I have avoided the issue long enough. Time to talk IRAQ. The way I see it: Bush did NOT lie. That said, we should not have gone. That said, since we did create the instability there, we have a moral obligation to stay until the outcome is clearer than it is today.
BUSH DID NOT LIE!
I can not stand to hear everyone saying that our Shrub in Chief lied. Bush is a shrub. He has about the same intellect. Without having seen any 'scientific' tests, I believe I can say that Bush is the stupidest president we have ever had. At the time we decided to go to war, every government in the world 'knew' Saddam had WMD's. The Brits said it. The French said it (I read the French daily, LeMonde). Heck, even the Russians said it. You want to ask Iran? They were on the receiving end of it. At the time of the invasion, NO ONE said that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Not even Saddam claimed to have disposed of the WMDs everyone knew he had. Putting it simply, either we missed the WMDs because they were shipped out of Iraq either before or shortly after the invasion, or everyone was mistaken. Notice that word. MISTAKEN. A false statement made by a person who reasonably believes that statement to be true is not a liar. That person is mistaken. Bush made a mistake. He did not tell a lie.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE
The question at that time about the war was whether the WMDs justified us invading a sovereign country. We should not have done so. The number of American soldiers who have died in Iraq, while astonishingly LOW for a war, is an unacceptable loss of life for a situation where neither our national security nor our borders were at risk. Had Saddam been in actual possession of WMDs **and** was making threats of 'anthraxing' Washington D.C., war would have been justified. But the mere possession of WMDs without making unjustified threats against others is not a sufficient justification for war. While Saddam did make unjustified threats against others, those threats were decades old by the time we went in to remove Saddam. He invaded Iran and Kuwait. Both of these invasions were long over by 2003. Had we deposed Saddam in the first Gulf War, it would have probably been justified. Had we done so within a few years of that war, it might have been justified. Over a decade later? With no military provocation? No. War should be a last resort and should only be used once all other options are eliminated AND where the issue is one of truly national security. Sorry Big Oil. If Saddam or Hugo nationalizes your oil field and takes it over, dont buy another field from him. Dont go running to the President and Congress asking for a declaraion of war.
BUT SINCE WE ARE THERE...
Unfortunately, we are in Iraq. We overthrew a government that was not threatening us and was not engaging in terratorial conquest. Now we have a mess on our hands. Bombing and occupying foreign countries doesn't usually create a peaceful local population. But since we are there, and we caused the mess, it is our responsibility to clean the mess up if it is possible to do so. If we fail to do so, here is what will happen and what we will be responsible for. First, no I do not believe that Al Qaeda or Al Qauda In Iraq will take over. But there will be massive carnage. There will be mass evacuations. There will be a MAJOR humanitarian crisis (think Mogadishu). If we cut and run, the civilian casualties will be astronomical. Whomever eventually establishes some sort of control will undoubtedly be as bad as Saddam was. Summary executions. Rape chambers. Execution by drawing and quartering. Seriously, without a major military power there until the new government is on solid ground will guaruntee that Iraq will be run by a dictator, not Mohatma Ghandi. We put the civilians in Iraq in the position of having this happen to them if we do not succeed. Therefore, it is on our heads when we cut and run.
I am not saying that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely. Actually, in some ways I am, simply because the word 'indefinitely' means that we wouldn't have a date certain for defeat. But if 'indefintely' is taken to mean that there are no limits to our involvement either in terms of length of stay or level of involvement, then we should not be there 'indefintely'. These limits, at least in terms of a specific date, are counterproductive.
But if we frame it differently, a new option arises. What we need to do is stay until either defeat or victory is certain. The biggest military mistake, other than going in in the first place, was the number of troops we sent over. I have always endorsed the 'Colin Powell Doctrine' of [if you are going to go in with the military, go in with overwhelming force]. Dont go halfway. That is what we did. We sent over a force that was overwhelming to Saddam and his wimpy army. What we did not do was send over a force that would overwhelm the Islamo-fascist insurgency. We have started to do that now. In January, President Shrub ordered an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq, known as the surge. Since then, deaths in Iraq have been dropping substantially, and security is being established. It is not a quick thing to do, crushing an insurgency. 20,000 troops is not enough. We should double, or more the troops that we have there now. Im thinking something along the lines of another 150,000 - 200,000 troops.
Will this cause an increase in the number of American deaths in Iraq. Yes, at least in the short term. But it would crush the insurgency right quick and in the long run would save American lives. As for the Iraqis dying on a daily basis, when we send the troops there, the insurgents will focus more on us than on the sectarian violence, saving MANY times the number of innocent Iraqis than the number of Americans. To heck with many times. It will be on the orders of magnitude, the number of lives saved. As for the number of American deaths, even in the short run, the deaths will never even come close to those sustained on a daily basis in WWII. If for some reason, this approach is wrong, and the insurgents are still able to get the upper hand, well... then it is time to be going. If we are not able to make the situation better, that is the definite time to leave.
Should we stay in Iraq indefinitely? No. What we should do is send a quarter million extra troops to secure Iraq, train the Iraqi army and police forces, and then get out. If the quarter million troops can't get the job done, then we have no reason to stay.
CONCLUSION
Summing up, Bush did not lie. He was mistaken about WMDs. That said, WMDs without beligerant aggression is not a just cause for war. We should not have gone. But we did go.
Everyone knows that taking a baseball bat into a china shop means you might have to buy something you didn't plan on buying. We went into the china shop and swung our baseball bat at everything in sight. We broke it. We bought it. Get the damn job done, no matter the short term cost, if it is at all possible. We are moving in the right direction with the surge, but we need to multiply it times 10. But if the job cannot be done, even with overwhelming force, then we are wasting our time and it is time to go. Even the china shop owner knows there is nothing to be done when a bum breaks everything.
We took our baseball bat to Iraq. Are we a bum? Or are we going to pull out our credit card and take responsibility for our actions?
VISA 4099 XXXX XXXX XXXX. Date 03/2003.
Signed, George W. Bush and the American Public.
