Interesting reading for anyone who strongly opposes the war in Iraq and rejects the reasons for starting it. Check out this Clinton speech from 1998, making the case for war and regime change.Doobie Schlitz, in a rare sober moment, wonders aloud how this might affect your thinking.
7 comments:
I didn't see any case made for war, only an explanation of why a limited air strike campaign was being undertaken. Clinton stated he would "work with Iraqi opposition forces" with the long term goal of "a new Iraqi government" but it was just another case of rhetoric substituted for action. Sadam correctly surmised as much and hence he continued to flout the so-called "will of the international community" for the next 5 years. Clinton: gotta love him. Talk tough and argue convicingly with all the right reasons, logic, etc. then triangulate against what will play in Peoria, then make a half-assed compromise to try to gain the most support with the least political risk. Blah blah blah. Incidentally, a true libertarian should have very little interest in defending the Iraq war or advancing the notion that the U.S. should actively promote democracy abroad--highly un-CATO like positions, my dearest Bdog.
Good research - am curious about what led to finding that article - it being 8 years old and all...
Is your point that its not just a "bush" thing?
Presumably the Clinton admin exhausted all other avenues of action leaving unilateral regime change as the only solution (sic)
Im supprised that Iraq is currently at civil war (in all but name). As the plans for the regime change were presumably drawn up before this article ('98) was written - one would expect years of people-hours to have gone into simulations/ role-play/ etc. to get the process as slick as possible.
Of course there are arguments that the intervention of neighbours (mainly Iran) is much larger than expected - but thats a little too short sited for me to accept. Its in the interests of all neighbours to destabalise the actions of the west in Iraq, and the "planners" must have realised this - and must have had procedures for dealing with this - such as stringent boarder control - to stop the import of IEDs - specficially from Iran.
...what were we talking about again?
This is odd for doobie schlitz to say the least.
Raven, nice analysis of clinton's political strategy. I concur that, as a rule, libertarians are opposed to foreign intervention except in the case of a grave and imminent threat to national security, as opposed to, say, a gathering threat. And, since libertarians are highly skeptical of the government's effectiveness in carrying out massive ventures, it is not surprising that they doubt our government's ability to install a pro-US democracy in a hostile environment.
Alas, I'm not striving to be a perfect libertarian. Nor did I even state whether I support the war.
So, you know.... I'm just sayin.
Neptune, thank you for the thoughtful feedback. Your real name is Adrian, you're from Oxford, and we've had this conversation before, around a campfire, while little inner city kids slept noisily in nearby cabins.
Yes, you've got it... My point is, quite simply, that this war is more then just a "bush thing".
You see, I live in San Francisco, far and away the most left leaning city in America, where republicans rank right down there with child molesters and and people who like pineapple as a pizza topping. Most folks round these parts see this war as nothing more then a "bush thing". He and his administration were, the story around here goes, oil hungry, blood thirsty and eager to finish daddy's business. So he went and concocted a false story about Saddam's weapons in order to scare the populus and rally the nation into war. When confronted with the reminder that Bill Clinton, a man revered by most of the same people who hate Bush, drew the same conclusions about the threat Saddam posed to the United States as President Bush, and, like President Bush, advocated regime change as the ultimate solution, the leftist position becomes a bit less tenable.
Was Clinton oil hungry and blood thirsty as well? Was Clinton manipulating intelligence? What were his motivations? Could it be that both presidents were motivated purely by their interest in protecting our national security? Bush chose a different response (full scale war as opposed to tactical strikes) but recognized the same problem.
To your other point: At the military level, I imagine they've been preparing to invade Iraq since well before 1998-- They probably drew up those plans as far back as the first gulf war in 1990. And, yes, despite so many years of planning, it hasn't gone perfectly. I'm no military stategist so I don't know what's up with that. I'm not sure whats reasonable to expect in such situations... Did we ever topple a regime and install a successful democratic institution in its place without years of bloodshed and long strings of unexpected setbacks? If we have, then I can understand the criticism of this effort, cause it sure ain't livin up.
Well said indeed, B. I know you're not a Franklin Mint Liber' but I was just sayin', seriously, as I know you have never towed the liber line unequivocably. Regarding your point about Clinton and Bush recognizing the same danger but using different strategies, I concur.
Let us remember too that after the Africa embassy bombings in '98, Clinton's air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan (and a pharm. plant in Sudan) were condemned by many of our allies in the EU. I can show y'all a great document summarizing all of the official reactions/statements of the various EU member states to that very limited cruise missle strike. On the other hand, Bin Laden has explicitly stated that this "pin prick" response only proved to him that the U.S. would take a lickin' without any serious retaliation--when push came to shove, we backed down. This mild response emboldened him to "go big" with 9/11.
So in the eyes of our European friends, the move was overly aggressive and unwarranted. In the eyes of our enemy, it was kids play.
Finally, regarding the messy situation, and many tactical errors made along the way, these blunders are far less significant and have cost far fewer lives than the multitude of mistakes that the allies made in WWII, not to mention previous wars. For the best evidence on this, see Victor Davis Hanson, military historian and professor of classics at Cal State University. He makes a very cogent argument that the U.S.-- while certainly making serious mistakes in the Iraq campaign--has done no poorer a job than in previous wars. Hanson is a national treasure, everyone should read him.
Anyway, Clinton was talkin the talk.
yeah, but he hasent returned my bermuda shorts. A hex on him.
my problem with both our countries is they are virtually 2 party - so when we talk about "well the others were talking about it too" it doesnt prove/mean anything to me.
Of course your point stands - its not just a bush thing.
Saw a documentary yesterday, "Life After a Serious Post on Doobie Schlitz",things went back to normal after one-eyed Octopus "Nick" operating out of a secret volcanoe island in Disney Land, The Moon, returned the stolen keyboards to the shlitz team, mumbling about computers as the death of the Ink industry...
shut up
Post a Comment