To be fair, Iraq was a dilemma. Saddam Hussein, prior to U.S. involvement militarily and economically, had no problem systematically obliterating people that he felt inclined to remove any sort of power from. Economic sanctions (and a little less involved military involvement prior to '03) did, in point of fact, cripple many of his militaristic endeavors, but this came at the expense of, essentially, starving a sh!t ton of Iraqi children. He didn't respond to pressure. Between a rock and a hard spot, removing Saddam was really the only other option.
Choices seemed to be:
a) Let Saddam do as he pleased to political opposition (killing hundreds of thousands of people)
b) Sanction his ass forever (killing hundreds of thousands of people)
c) Get rid of Saddam (killing hundreds of thousands of people)
I'm not really sure what would be best in the long-term. In past U.S. military involvement, I could understand skepticism towards any U.S. intervention - but the story doesn't seem to substantiate oil (low ROI - and the Chinese are drilling it FAR more than we), terrorists, soviets, or permanent military presence. At the worst, it was a catastrophic miscalculation. At best, it might have been the lesser of numerous alternatives. In all honesty, I don't fvcking know.
Log in to comment