My new fan “Gosh” asked a couple questions, and I thought I'd show how much I appreciate Gosh's precious and valuable dissent by giving this its own post.
Quoth Gosh:
Ok, then what were the proper justifications for an invasion of Iraq?
And would the American public have gone along with these justifications?
"Actual" is not the same as "proper." Given your obviously dogmatic hatred of Bush, I'm sure you wouldn't consider anything he does "proper."
The actual justifications are numerous, and the WMD issue was among them. Bush thought there were WMDs there, Europe thought so, and contrary to the lying Fatty Drumheller, so did the majority of the CIA.
But, really WMD is minor. Saddam had no useful means to deliver them to any American target, and no real benefit for doing so. He might have given them to terrorist organizations, but it certainly isn't why he kept them around. His goal was to remain a regional terror, and not unduly upset the US in the process. Saddam, and the current crop of Iraqi strongmen as well, are all thinking regionally, all the time. The US is temporary to them. Saddam was in charge for 35 years. We've only been in their business for 15.
I think the primary reason Bush invaded was to resolve the situation, or at least progress it on to the next phase. Post 9-11 containment was no longer functioning as desired. More regional pressure was needed. Iraq had become a rallying point for jihadists. UN sanctions were causing resentment in the Muslim world, and American military presence in Saudi Arabia even moreso, which ultimately caused 9-11, and blew Clinton and GHW Bush's containment policy out of the water.
9-11 places the US in a difficult position. AQ attacked us in order to send the message that we needed to get the hell out of Saudi Arabia (among other things). If we comply, we lose our ability to assert pressure on Iraq, and further enforce the view that the US is a paper tiger and entirely temporary in the region. The conclusion that I support, and the conclusion that Bush reached, was that we needed to force the Saddam issue, and deal with him sooner than later. It was fairly obvious he wouldn't just roll over, so that adds the goal of creating a US-friendly democracy in his place.
The fact is, Bush honestly believes in the "power of freedom." Your friends in the MSM like to condition you to mock this phrase relentlessly, but it's real for GWB. He believes that freedom is contagious, and will create societies that are happier, and more inclined to see things the same way Americans do. I happen to agree with him. I don't think we're having problems with the middle east because they're Muslims, I think we're having problems with them because their societies are oppressive, violent, and ultimately incongruent with our own.
I'm sure you're wondering how it's our place to send troops around the world to influence local affairs. If that's your deal, you might want to leave Seattle behind, and hop on a plane to Europe, cause they're more than happy to stay in their own borders complain at each other. I happen to believe that the US is a force for good in the world. Not universal good, not purely altruistic good, but a very clear net good.
Even when we go stomping into Iraq, hitting civilians with stray bullets, and beating up dudes in prisons, it's still considerably less harm than Saddam was doing (especially as he used UN sanctions as a club on his political enemies). Some people seem to think it's better that Saddam kill five Iraqis than we kill one. I find that view exceedingly ridiculous. If you care about human life, then less death is better than more. If you don't care about human life, then why are you concerned with who we kill?
So, long story short, Bush wanted to end the drawn out dance with Saddam, and the mockery it made of the UN and of the US. He wanted to end it decisively and forcefully, to show the world that the US is still serious about its foreign policy, and about people not acting like assholes when we tell them not to.
Now, would the American people have accepted this? No, probably not. We have come to a point at which the only conceivable justification for war is imminent threat, especially nuclear. We're a nation full of people like you, that is, hopelessly naive clowns, who think the world runs on hugs, and rewarding Saddam for years of oppression and deceit was the best idea. But, then again, we're a Republic, not a Democracy. We elect leaders to act in our best interest, not to just collate our fickle whims, and implement the emotional and scatterbrained shrieking of our most vocal citizens.
None of this bothers me. The US is a nation founded on liberty, and it's good that we have a sizeable population of people who are uncomfortable with stomping around the world enforcing our will. We don't want to get too comfortable with the moral highground, lest we cease to deserve it. What this means, though, is that the people need to either be smart enough to know they don't know shit about geopolitics (and they'll never admit that, as you so eloquently demonstrate), or they need to be reassured and comforted with dumbed down PR that works for them.
This is what Bush attempted in probably the only terms that would have worked (imminent threat). I would be overjoyed if Bush had the charisma and leadership ability to give the real reasons we needed to do what we did in Iraq, to educate America to our duties to the world, and make everyone understand, but he's simply not that guy. He's awkward, goofy, and unwilling to take any risks with candor. So, we're left with the PR clusterfuck of the WMD issue, and the headful of confusion it gives simpletons such as yourself. It's a shame, it's Bush's fault, but it's really not all that much concern to me. People like you are stupid and uninformed. It's better for the country if you're made to feel comfortable and safe, but sometimes you hear thunder, and get all fired up, and need to cower under the bed and curse the two-legs for not appeasing the cloud gods.