-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Over at The American Conservative, Clark Stooksbury briefly comments on my reflections on the impending conclusion to the War in Iraq.
After observing that my question, “Should Saddam have stayed in power?” would have probably got me labeled an “unpatriotic conservative” eight years ago, Stooksbury writes, “He’s on to something, although he should be asking, “should the United States have invaded Iraq?”
Yet one cannot ask the question responsibly without also asking if we are prepared to keep Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq. Frankly, it puts things in far starker terms. Yet notwithstanding Saddam’s atrocities, as I demonstrate in my article, the answer to that question isn’t so clear cut given how the removal of Saddam has shifted the balance of power in the region to Iran.
Stooksbury goes on to argue that the War in Iraq was a forseeable disaster and provides a link to an article written in The American Conservative by Eric Margolis back in 2002. While Margolis had the foresight to state that the U.S. wouldn’t know what do to do in Iraq once Saddam was deposed, he spends a good chunk of the article lambasting Israel (as he has been known to do):
Iraq, unlike North Korea, poses a potential threat to Israel’s regional hegemony and Mideast nuclear monopoly because of its oil wealth and — at least until 1991 — industrial base. For Administration hawks who view the Mideast mainly through the lens of Israel’s strategic needs, crushing Iraq is a high priority. A shattered Iraq, divided into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regions, would permanently terminate any future challenge to Israel.
Iraq’s northern oil fields could then by annexed by Israel’s new strategic ally, Turkey, which has no oil. Turkey’s generals have long eyed Iraq’s oil-rich Mosul and Kirkuk regions, once part of the Ottoman Empire. Oil would transform Turkey from a financial cripple into a major political and military power, and assure its role as America’s regional gendarme.
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein and splintering Iraq would certainly be beneficial for Israel, but there are a host of arguments to be made why such aggression would be inimical to America’s interests.
Well, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein not only did not bring about the splintering of Iraq, it has hardly been beneficial for Israel. During the drafting of Iraq’s constitution in 2005, Israelis were the only nationality barred from seeking Iraqi citizenship or holding dual citizenship. Although this language was subsequently amended, Iraqi born Israelis are for all intents and purposes ineligible to reclaim Iraqi citizenship. The Iraqi government has also actively participated in the Arab League boycott of Israel. I would also hasten to mention that Israel and Turkey aren’t exactly chummy these days with Turkey having recalled its ambassador last month.
Yet Margolis mentions Iran only in passing and he saw them as a target of “neoconservatives” rather than a nation that would wield enormous power in a post-Saddam Iraq.
My point here is that neither supporters nor detractors of the War in Iraq foresaw the emergence of Iran and it is this emergence which prompted my question about Saddam as our military forces prepare to leave Iraq.
Postscript: I have read Jim Antle’s critique and I think he has point. To say that that neither supporters nor detractors of the War in Iraq foresaw the emergence of Iran is perhaps overstating things somewhat. I would however say that neither side foresaw Iraq becoming “an Iranian Shiite client state in Baghdad” to borrow a phrase from Robert Spencer.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/25/what-wasnt-foreseen-in-iraq
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dai Alanye | 10.25.11 @ 5:05PM
What's next, an argument that we should have kept Gorbachev in power to counter Putin? It's all 20-20 hindsight with those guys, isn't it?
RJ| 10.25.11 @ 7:09PM
The following is from Donald Rumsfeld's book, Known and Unknown:
"I have been asked on occasion if I believed the war was worth the cost, particularly since WMD stockpiles were not found. … While the road not travelled always looks smoother, the cold reality of a Hussein regime in Baghdad most likely would mean a Middle East far more perilous than it is today; Iran and Iraq locked in a struggle to field nuclear weapons, which could give rise to a regional arms race among Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria; continued support for terrorists from an Iraqi regime enriched by rising oil prices; wars of aggression launched against neighboring countries in the Gulf; the torture and death of thousands more Iraqis suspected of opposing the regime… (page 717) I have no doubt that given the facts that were available to President Bush in 2003, I would have made the same decision. Further, knowing what we later learned and recognizing the costs, there is not a persuasive argument to be made that the United States would be in a stronger strategic position or that Iraq and the Middle East would be better off if Saddam were still in power. In short, ridding the region of Saddam’s brutal regime has created a more stable and secure world." (page 718)
C Bowen | 10.25.11 @ 7:46PM
Rummy basically admits he was too stupid to understand he was being duped. The guy actually thought Iraq was a threat.
So pathetic. I wonder why he didn't something honorable like Vince Foster or David Kelly? Guess he had no honor.
superbeagle1900| 10.26.11 @ 2:39AM
First of all, C Bowen is an idiot! That's first an foremost. Second, what is the vote tally on going to war with Iraq? 99 out of 100 in the senate? My foreign policy is this theory of the usefullness of Iraq during this issue; the only use of Saddam Hussein was to keep Iran at bay, now that he's gone look what hppened? The libs love to say that Bush was privvy to false information and I attack back, "Really," would you knowingly cause american volunteers in war to die for political gain? Answer is clearly No! Dems cunited with repubs to go to war and we got him. With that defeat we were forced into ridicule and I was afraid to wear my "I'd rather be waterboarding" t-shirt. How sad! That's what I get for having conservative values, it sucks!
superbeagle1900| 10.26.11 @ 3:10AM
Hey, how many americans smoke?
C Bowen | 10.26.11 @ 6:36AM
Invading Iraq because of alleged WMDS, started with the Clinton Administration, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.
Then the Bushies started saying what had already been discarded as Clinton Era lies.
Iraq a threat? LOL Indeed, the two parties agreed that Iraq was a threat--a sure sign they were lying.
Conservatives of the era understood that.
superbeagle1900| 10.26.11 @ 2:54AM
Where are the SAMs from Libya?
Solo| 10.26.11 @ 9:16AM
From the article:
"Iraq, unlike North Korea, poses a potential threat to Israel's regional hegemony and Mideast nuclear monopoly because of its oil wealth and -- at least until 1991 -- industrial base. For Administration hawks who view the Mideast mainly through the lens of Israel's strategic needs, crushing Iraq is a high priority. A shattered Iraq, divided into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regions, would permanently terminate any future challenge to Israel."
Huh? Israel is a regional Hegemon? Is that what he said?
That's laughable!
Israel is literally under siege from all sides and has gone totally defensive. Hell...they're walling themselves off! They're issuing gas masks and bio-suits to school children, for crying out loud!
"Hegemon" That's rich!
Moreover..it is absurd to make the claim that our interests in the Middle East are confined to Israel's security needs. Our primary interest in the Middle East can be summed up in three letters:
O--I--L
Like it or not, oil is what runs the economic engine of Western Civilization and the Middle East is LOADED with it. It would not bode well for any western nation to have that supply consolidated into the hands of any one Middle East Fiefdom.
Just imagine the chaos possible if a significant portion of the world's oil supply could be turned on or off at the whim of some tin-pot dictator of questionable mental stability (the Middle East is LOADED with them, too).
Does anyone really believe that we ran Saddam out of Kuwait in order to protect Israel?
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (and the subsequent threat to Saudi Arabia) was "Phase One" of his attempt to consolidate large portions of Middle Eastern oil.
His expansionist ambitions, combined with his WMD programs and stockpiles made him a threat to the entire Middle Eastern region.
On the heels of 9-1-1, his refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors made those WMD programs and weapons, if delivered into the hands of terrorists (and the Middle East is LOADED with them, as well), a very real threat to American citizens here on our own soil.
We could not verify the disposition of those weapons programs or the stock piles. After 13 years of intense pressure , several iterations of Weapons Inspection teams, repeated appeals to the U.N. Security Council, 17 U.N. Resolutions, specific warnings to Saddam, an almost unanimous Congressional "Authorization For Use Of Force In Iraq", a visible and well advertised military build up and several final warnings issued directly at Saddam, we finally had no other option but to go in and verify it for ourselves.
There was no "Rush to war"
No "NeoCon conspiracy"
No "Bush lies".
And damned well no 8 year long slog, 4500 Americans dead and $800 billion all spent to protect "Israeli Hegemony".
I swear...the longer this goes on, the crazier the conspiracy theories get!
C Bowen| 10.26.11 @ 11:06AM
LOL--you were scared of Saddam. Too funny.
Solo| 10.26.11 @ 1:02PM
And..you're scared that our defending ourselves might, somehow, help Israel.
Too pathetic!
C Bowen | 10.26.11 @ 3:27PM
Iraq didn't attack my country--did they attack yours?
Remember how you wrote that you were scared Saddam was going to send over a terrorist on a plane with some deadly virus cooked up by his evil genius scientists? Too funny.