If France didn't want the US pushing them around, they shouldn't have supported George Washington

[muckefuck]

A sentiment I've now heard from serveral sources is, "If we didn't want Saddam to have these weapons, we shouldn't have given them to him during the Iran-Iraq war." The simple logic of this argument is unassailable, yet you have to wonder if those making it have thought it through. I mean, what would a policy based on such logic look like?

As far as I can tell, it would be One Strike And You're Out. Countries get one chance to make the right decision when it comes to picking and supplying allies and, if that ally turns on them in the future, they have to stand back and take their lumps. It doesn't matter if the geopolitics have completely shifted in the meantime; there are no take-backs. Even if that ally should become the Taliban, there's no going in and trying to rectify the situation.

I don't understand this. I thought that one of the major lessons from 9/11 was that disengagement doesn't work. If we do get involved, we'll make horrible mistakes and catch a lot of flak, but if we don't, it'll bite us in the ass anyway.

What we really need is some kind of check on foreign policy to ensure that governments only intervene if it improves the situation in the long run. This is where I think cassielsander's criticisms about "power without responsibility" are right on target. The problem with a lot of the USA's military interventions is that, if things went south, it just lumped it and left. Heck, this happened even when things went well--Gulf War I being the perfect example ("the right war for the wrong reason or the wrong war for the right reason", as princeofcairo likes to say).

Since war still seems inevitable, I haven't given up hope that it might end up being the right war, though for the wrong reasons and done the wrong way. (I'd really like to think that it wasn't necessary to alienate so many allies and do such potential damage to international institutions.) If it isn't, then I hope the next administration has the wisdom, expertise, and dedication to clean up whatever mess this one has left behind.

Comments

Give peace a chance ... zu spät!

[(Anonymous)]

Die US-Administration hat durch Demonstration militärischer Stärke die (Zwangs-)Kooperation des irakischen Diktators (zunehmend) erreicht. Es wurde stärker abgerüstet in den letzten Monaten als in den 11 Jahren zuvor. Die Berichte von UN-Chefinspektor Blix fielen sehr positiv für den Irak aus. Die Ziele der US-Administration bleiben unklar. Abrüstung des Iraks scheint es jedenfalls nicht zu sein, sonst hätte die US-Regierung ihre militärische Präsenz in der Region als Erfolg bewerten können und eine Verlängerung dieses Prozesses zustimmen müssen. Bush und seine Falken haben sich in Wild West Manier zum point of no return manövriert. Sie nehmen in Kauf, dass sie keine Mehrheit in der Welktgemeinschaft haben und schwächen die UN unwiderruflich. Demnächst kann jeder Nationalstaat einfach wider den Krieg gegen einen unliebsamen Staat ausrufen (oder ist es ein Privileg der USA). Die USA werden nicht durch den Irak bedroht, selbst der Begriff Präventivkrieg ist höhnisch. In den nächsten Tagen werden hundertausende Irakis verrecken. Die Hinterbliebenen werden den USA die kostspielige *Freiheit* nicht danken.

Just A Couple Questions

[0595.livejournal.com]

What "lumps" would America supposedly be "taking" by not attacking Iraq?

How did anyone construe a "major lesson" that "disengagement doesn't work" by anything that happened 9/11/01?

Re: Just A Couple Questions

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

The dictatorship in Iraq is iminicable to American strategic and economic interests in the Middle East. It aids and supports terrorist groups that are opposed to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may also support terrorist groups active in other American allies. Furthermore, some experts think it poses a direct threat to domestic security.

America disengaged from Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet empire. The regime which took over there provided accommodation for a terrorist organisation that executed a terrorist attack on the USA. "Leaving them alone" to run their own affairs without US intereference did not enhance the security of American civilians; disengagement did not work.