09.28.04
Posted in culture at 11:31 pm by
Tony Blair addressed the labour party today and apologized for going to war based upon spurious intelligence information. He stopped short though of apologizing for ousting dictator Saddam Hussein. I don’t blame him for this, but it does raise the question: is Iraq better off without Saddam Hussein?
At first glance, this question seems stupid. I mean, of course, Iraq is safer without Saddam Hussein, right? I think the answer to this question is a VERY qualified yes. Yes–in the sense that Hussein systematized a national network of terrorism in order to rule his country. For that reason, Iraq is far better off without Hussein in power.
But in another very real way, Iraq is far worse of that we’re simply ignorant not to identify. You see, the removal of Saddam Hussein paved the road for a plethora of more organic terrorists to flex their wings. Before the “liberation” of Iraq any extremeist group that called Iraq home was living in the fear of a tyrannical leader that could at any moment descend upon their operation and kill each and every one of them.
In a very real way the coalition of the willing has unwittingly unleashed a dangerous breed of freedom on Iraq. Saying that Iraq is safer, or even that the world is safer, because of the removal of an evil dictator is a gross oversimplification of the issues present in Iraq. In a way, Blair seems to be making a straw person argument out of the situation. That argument goes something like this:
1. Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical dictator
2. Iraq was under the power of Saddam Hussein
3. Countries are better off when they are not under the control of a tyrannical dictator.
4. Saddam Hussein is no longer in control of Iraq
Therefore…
5. Iraq is better off (safer) now that Saddam Hussein is not in power.
My problem with this logic (though the logic itself is valid) lies in the fact that it really only tells half of the story. Saddam Hussein may now be out of ower but Iraq being safe is entirely another issue. This, however, is what the public is expected to believe.
I would posit that Saddam baing out of power and Iraq being safer are two entirely different issues. This is where the issue of the US et al. not having an exit strategy becomes particularly salient. It could be argued that if the countries that invaded Iraq had a comprehensive exit strategy, it actually WOULD be safer. This is the why Bush is trying so hard to convince folks that Iraq is a safer place–it makes it look at least marginally more like there was actually an exit strategy for the Iraq conflict.
Of course, even Blair supporters are saying, “it would be foolish to call Iraq safer now than before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.” Bush, however, still claims that he would’ve gone to war knowing everything he knows now. He’d do it all the same, you know where he stands.
You’ll just have to make up your own mind if you agree with him.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/28/the_situation_in_iraq/trackback/
Posted in culture at 11:31 pm by
Tony Blair addressed the labour party today and apologized for going to war based upon spurious intelligence information. He stopped short though of apologizing for ousting dictator Saddam Hussein. I don’t blame him for this, but it does raise the question: is Iraq better off without Saddam Hussein?
At first glance, this question seems stupid. I mean, of course, Iraq is safer without Saddam Hussein, right? I think the answer to this question is a VERY qualified yes. Yes–in the sense that Hussein systematized a national network of terrorism in order to rule his country. For that reason, Iraq is far better off without Hussein in power.
But in another very real way, Iraq is far worse of that we’re simply ignorant not to identify. You see, the removal of Saddam Hussein paved the road for a plethora of more organic terrorists to flex their wings. Before the “liberation” of Iraq any extremeist group that called Iraq home was living in the fear of a tyrannical leader that could at any moment descend upon their operation and kill each and every one of them.
In a very real way the coalition of the willing has unwittingly unleashed a dangerous breed of freedom on Iraq. Saying that Iraq is safer, or even that the world is safer, because of the removal of an evil dictator is a gross oversimplification of the issues present in Iraq. In a way, Blair seems to be making a straw person argument out of the situation. That argument goes something like this:
1. Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical dictator
2. Iraq was under the power of Saddam Hussein
3. Countries are better off when they are not under the control of a tyrannical dictator.
4. Saddam Hussein is no longer in control of Iraq
Therefore…
5. Iraq is better off (safer) now that Saddam Hussein is not in power.
My problem with this logic (though the logic itself is valid) lies in the fact that it really only tells half of the story. Saddam Hussein may now be out of ower but Iraq being safe is entirely another issue. This, however, is what the public is expected to believe.
I would posit that Saddam baing out of power and Iraq being safer are two entirely different issues. This is where the issue of the US et al. not having an exit strategy becomes particularly salient. It could be argued that if the countries that invaded Iraq had a comprehensive exit strategy, it actually WOULD be safer. This is the why Bush is trying so hard to convince folks that Iraq is a safer place–it makes it look at least marginally more like there was actually an exit strategy for the Iraq conflict.
Of course, even Blair supporters are saying, “it would be foolish to call Iraq safer now than before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.” Bush, however, still claims that he would’ve gone to war knowing everything he knows now. He’d do it all the same, you know where he stands.
You’ll just have to make up your own mind if you agree with him.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/28/the_situation_in_iraq/trackback/
Wow said,
September 29, 2004 at 10:19 am
Very good post… An apology from Tony Blair. What a guy. We have much to apologize for but I doubt we’ll see much of that from our side of the pond. Not to say anything for what the answers are, I just see that our leaders are a lot more about saving face at this point than being truthful about very much.
Wow said,
September 29, 2004 at 10:24 am
oh ya… and from my perspective there was ALWAYS too much emphasis put on these nebulous WMD and if the focus in the very beginning had been on ousting Sadam Hussein there may have been no need to throw the red herring in there about weapons of mass destruction! There were so many reasons the choice was made to go to war… I’m not saying right or wrong here, just saying when did the Weapons of Mass Destruction become the focal point of the reasons!!? That to me is the big PR mistake. - not that I know a lot about these things, just sayin from my perspective, that’s all.
Visiting Atheist said,
September 29, 2004 at 4:32 pm
I’m not sure I buy premise 3. For example, by most metrics Rome was better off under the absolute rule of the Caesars than when the Germanic invaders were pillaging and burning left and right.
In America we’re a bit hypersensitive about tyranny since that was the excuse we used to cut our ties with Britain. I think that in terms of human suffering, abject anarchy is comparable to (or worse than) tyranny, it’s just that there’s no one person or group of people to blame for the evils that befall the people.
I do agree that just about any form of government is preferable to tyranny, but rule by chaos is not per se a government…
Cheers,
VA
Brandon said,
September 29, 2004 at 6:21 pm
I agree, VA. Actually, I almost made mention of that in the post but decided it would go against my overall flow. Not that it invalidates the logic…but it does make the conclusion logically false.
Just Pat said,
September 30, 2004 at 7:42 am
Isn’t that why we’re there? Of course, I know WHY is the question of the day. But, for us to leave at a point before civilians - and the world - are safe from another goverment like Hussein’s would be wrong. Even if we appear to be an unwelcome chaperone to some.
Brandon said,
September 30, 2004 at 7:54 am
I agree, JP. What frustrates me the most is the “safer” rhetoric. The truth is in one sense Iraqis are safer–but in another even more real sense they’re not safer than they were before…and neither is the world.