Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...10365589c.html
I often agree with what George Will has to say, but I don't agree with the column he wrote above. He seems to think that the purpose of invading Iraq was to establish democracy for democracy's sake. He doesn't get the part about stimulating change in the middle east to change the environment that breeds terrorists.
|
(a) If the reason you enunciate was a large part of the administration's rationale for the war in Iraq, it was well-hidden and little discussed publicly beforehand.
(b) The war in Iraq most assuredly changed the environment in the Middle East, but the positive change desired _may_ flow in the long term, in a best case scenario, if Iraq becomes a peaceful, stable, well-governed, and non-agresssive state. The negative influences of the events of the war and its aftermath on the U.S. position in the Middle East serve as powerful counterweghts and have ripple effects that are very difficult to measure and predict.
(c) While you may be correct that the potential rewards for this exercise remain great, that does not mean that the policy should have been adopted. You must weigh and balance the upside gains and down-side risks, along with the likelihood of the various outcomes.
(d) The administration's calculus in that regard _may_ have been fundamentally flawed because it now appears that the administration operated under a number of false assumptions, based in part on intelligence from untrustworthy sources, and that many key pre-war predictions did not pan out.
(e) Undertaking the Iraq war as the means to accomplish your stated goal would have been taking an extraordinary risk with a low likelihood of success and high potential for severe negative consequences. At the same time, other, less drastic alternatives may have been preferable to achieve a similar goal.
I think Will understands all that very well -- and would say it prettier.
S_A_M
