What if Bush Has Been Right About Iraq All Along?

Iraq Forum

February 1, 2005

BY MARK BROWN
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required

But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008

http://www.foxnews.com/images/152753/15_2_020305_bush_baby.jpg

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brow...ws-brown01.html

Yeah, and if my aunt had a pair she'd be my uncle.

-HECK!

http://www.tech-sol.net/humor/democratic_seal.jpg

I have a weird feeling of deja vu... I don't know why... can someone fill me in exactly? something about this thread - particularly the above post - seems familiar. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but I just feel like we've seen this all before. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

http://www.inreview.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=535790

So now we toppled Saddam because we wanted Iraq to be a democratic state? Well let’s just add one more star to our flag why don’t we?

Bush wanted to go into Iraq, kick out Saddam, and set up a democracy so he needed a reason to do so. Penance? For what, because Bush may succeed in doing what he set out to do in the first place? What about accountability? I think it’s ridiculous that people (like the poster of this thread) blame Bush for nothing and yet credit him for everything.

If Iraq becomes a democracy, great. I don’t know of any people on earth that truly doesn’t want to be a free society. So yes, Iraqis will take advantage of this opportunity to do so. But why not invade country after country and set up democracies there as well? I’m sure despite whatever reason we come up with, citizens of the oppressed will be lined up at the polls trying to establish their freedoms.

However, accountability seems to have gone by the wayside. The focus is now on elections and being successful as they were, now this is the great reason for invading Iraq in the first place.

The title of this thread is contradicting. If we went to war on the pretext of what Bush decreed, then he was already proven wrong plain and simply. However, if we invaded Iraq to set up a democracy (which I believe is the case among other things), then of course Bush was right. The problem is, he never declared this as the reason for which we invaded.

However, I did enjoy this article. I think most of it presents a very balanced argument.

Bush is a puppet doing what people tell him. He probably actually believes the words coming out of mouth. The REAL reason was as a stage to "reform" the rest of the Middle East.

http://www.foxnews.com/photo_essay/photoessay_139_images/gop_boy_350.jpg

http://www.hannity.com/img/usa_map_election_thumb.jpg

Our Nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.
—George W. Bush

What about all this red ? Would it be the map of hot contaminated areas in the US
So, penance ?
Let's History judge.
As already said, one can only rejoice to see people benefiting from democracy.
But when people go to the polls because they are enjoined by religious leaders to obey to Allah .... while the outcome of the elections seems to be that the Iran-friendly / puppets shi'its religious parties prevail ... democracy might turn into something very strange ...
Iran is the real winner of this mess. Their political influence has factually increased in the region. Isn't it that country which is supposedly part of the so-called "axis of evil" ?

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/US_troops.jpg

15,000 US troops to leave Iraq

The United States is to pull 15,000 troops out of Iraq, signalling the launch of a new, post-election phase.

Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said numbers would be reduced back down to 135,000.

"I think we'll be able to come down to the level that was projected before this election," he said.

Mr Wolfowitz told a Senate committee allied forces expect to have trained and equipped 200,000 Iraqi troops and police by October.

He expressed confidence that whole areas of the country would be successfully handed over to Iraqis over the coming six months.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the focus would now be on training Iraqi security forces, although he warned complete US withdrawal was not in sight.

Rumsfeld hopes the elections will encourage ordinary Iraqis to fight the insurgency alongside American forces and even provide US forces with useful information.

He said that while he expects the level of violence to continue, the voting may have marked a "tipping point," turning the tide against insurgents.

Meanwhile, President George Bush said timetables would not be set for a complete withdrawal strategy.

"You don't want the enemy to say, 'We'll just wait them out'," he said. "The timetable is as soon as possible, and it's going to be based on the willingness and the capacity of the Iraqi troops to fight the enemy."

http://www.usflag.org/animate/flagwave2.gif

As far as I'm concerned, there is no "what if he was right" no matter what sort of positive effects come out of the situation. The way I see it is that Iraq is a dangerous precedent that has clearly empowered the U.S. to enact its will against any country it pleases and without having to answer to any one. That, to me, will never be acceptable despite whatever fluffy, happy thoughts result from such actions. It's disgusting and I hope that 50 years from now history looks back on this and recognizes how regrettable it is.

CJ, my only comment to you directly is that you sound like a broken record now. You're only half a status point above a troll on this board now and I'll tell ya: trolls are banned on sight typically. Because you are at least somewhat responsive in discussions I've given you some slack, but my patience has its limits. So I'm going to ask you nicely to please stop posting the same stupid cry-baby and other propaganda images as your responses. If you're here to discuss the topics then discuss it. If you're here to simply to piss people off, then be gone already.

Hey Sean, remember this?

Byron thought it was worth it; I haven't met one single man or woman who's served over there who doesn't... and whether it was the wounded marines that Byron was trying to save in that house or the shear knowledge that they would have done the same thing for him, there's no question in any of their minds that it's worth it.
—Bill Norwood, the father of a fallen marine, who attended the president's State of the Union message.

That's nice, but then again, it's not up to the people who serve to THINK, only to do what they're told. The brains of the operation doesn't hand out in the trenches.

What happened to freedom of thought and expression. Doesn't a GI also get those freedoms. Especially since that is what they fight for?

"He had a commitment to our country and he believed deeply that the fight against terrorism needs to be kept away from our shores, that the fight should be over there, not here, and he saw his role as critical in that as well as bringing something of value to the Iraqi people," his father said. "Byron thought it was worth it; I haven't met one single man or woman who's served over there who doesn't... there's no question in any of their minds that it's worth it."

It just shows you that our fighting men and women—and their families in large—have their hearts and minds in the right place. It shows the stuff our best young people are made of. The things they have achieved in this war on tyrrany and terror is just unparalleled. I've never been more proud of our troops—our entire military—our Commander in Chief, and our country!

I think we need a few GIs here to give their point of view. Not just me, since I've been away from it for a few years. I left just after Desert Storm and I'm here to tell you. We begged to go to Saudi to be closer to the action.

Yes a GI follows orders, but they still have their own opinions. Almost all the GI's I knew were proud to serve and longed for the chance to use what they were trained to do. Sure there were a bunch who said, "I only joined for the Eductation". And all I got to say to them is "What part of MILITARY do you not understand?"

All or almost all GIs remember what George C. Patton said.

When we go to war it's not to go die for our country. It's to make the enemy die for his country. Or in this case CAUSE. And we are proud to do just that. The intent is not to go die but to win.

During the cold war we trained and trained and trained some more. Many never saw action but was more than willing to go. If you don't want to go to battle then don't join the military, reserves or Ntl Guard including CIA.

Looking at the topic title, I'll just say the end does not justify the means.

Why?

I for one do not believe that all GI's or most agree with this war. However, they do have a sense of duty and they will fight it no matter what. That's their job plain and simple.

I do believe a great many of them also want to come home but how can we tell the numbers?

It's all a matter of percentages, just like back home here. I'm sure if anyone is fighting, they want to believe in what their fighting for. For that matter, so does the insurgents believe.

As for the end justifying the means, it never does. I am perplexed at how you can ask why it doesn't Ron or is it just in this case? Sin can never be made righteousness and so it goes with wrong and right. All you can just look to the future and try and do what's right and sometimes, with the leadership of our country, that line is blurred so much so that so many of you can actually call wrong right because of it's outcome.

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, but I just wanted to point out that I appreciate CJ's posts. If you haven' noticed, they usually spark some kind of debate, which in the politics section ofa discussion forum, is exactly what you're supposed to do. Also, his use of images or articles as responses is the most efficient way to reply because a pictures says a thousand words, and an article is a carefully mastered and edited version of his opinion. Lastly, he knows he's getting under the skin of those who disagree with him, so as long as all of you show him how well he does that, his methods of posting will not change until he is banned. Since he's not being vulgar in his posts, it's hard to think of a real reason to ban him besides of course being anoyed. Doing so would be bad for inreview and it would vindicate CJ's position as well.

I think what you guys need (the guys on the left) is a Curly Joe of your own.

There is more to Curley Joe than irritation Matt. It is irritation beyond tolerance. He is a person who just regurgitates someone else's writings. Quotes are helpful to prove a point, but they are not a point by themselves. He almost never has anything original to contribute to a discussion; only articles and insults. Anyone can post articles; it has nothing too it. And yes, he does get under people's skin because of his childish behavior, lame insults, and an impervious brain that refuses to acknowledge someone else's arguments. His quoted material may incite debate, but his behavior also incites irritation. I don't know about you, but I think this experience can be most likened to an annoying bee. You try to ignore it, take a swipe at it, hoping it will go away, but after a while you get tired of it. You want to swat it, kill it, and get it over with.

M.

articles are fine.... it's the repetitive idiocy

I have learned to not expect much of this guy. Sometimes I even laugh at his posts. F*** it.

As I said, the articles by themselves are fine; anyone can post them. It is the innate stonedeaf attitude that is annoying.

And those repetitive pictures? They are nothing, except pathetic.

M.

Like I said, you need a CJ of your own.

Keep posting Curley.

Nobody needs a CJ of one's own. The debate is polluted enough like that. But you are right to point out that some of the propaganda posted - 1 post among many others in average - generates a thread because valuable arguments for once are posted by others.
CJ's attitude has already been debated on this board. I don't appreciate his lame provocations and void propaganda, but I think he has the right to post his "opinion", be it plain others' propaganda, as far as he does not insult other members. Democracy is the right to talk out, at the one condition to respect others. That's the very point that matters in fact, and it's up to Sean for example to appreciate it.

Obviousely they need our protection still, and it's in everyone's best interest that we're there right now. Even though they do have a choice, they'll choose, in the interest of rebuilding and keeping their country safe for the time being, that we stay.

By the way, that was very curley of you. But it was aimed at judging him specifically, where his posts and pictures are usually relevant to the subject at hand.

So... close.

Excellent.
The risk now is to have newly elected Iraqi officials - shiite clerics - seeking a rapprochement with Iranian leaders, knowing that such strong ties already exist between people of same culture and religion. Never forget that those countries have been shaped by colonial History and that their borders do not reflect the differences one may expect between their population. Iran is the real winner of the elections.
Now what will the US have to do in order to secure its position in Iraq ? Leave troops indefinitely there, under the pressure of a strenghthened nearby Iran, pulling strings throughout the country ?

It all depends on what the Iraqi government decides. They may negotiate a Forces Agreement (I forget the exact name of it) to keep U.S. Forces in country, which many countries have done. That is why we are in so many countries. Because they desire the security of having U.S. Forces there. Take for instance the Philippines. We were asked to leave and we did. The Philippines has a good relationship with the U.S. They help us, we help them.

One Senator just returned from Iraq last night and said there has been a shift in the Sunni minority. Previously they wanted U.S. troops out, right after the election. The Sunni Clerics have changed their mind. They want the U.S. to stay until everything is stabilized.

I might add that 15,000 troops are leaving Iraq. 50,000 Iraqi troops are in training and 30,000 have signed up. Currently the Iraqi military and police out number the amount of U.S. forces.

2,500 Iraqis are signing up DAILY for military/security service.

http://www.saveurs.sympatico.ca/ency_6/boeuf/hamburger.jpg

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....&threadid=29105

Damn Dekka, I am eating right now and you made me want that hamburger. You rascal.

M.