As someone with a modest knowledge of American history, I find the arguments against America's invasion of Iraq curious.
The argument that President Bush is a maverick who threw out all the rules in his rush to invade Iraq overlooks that his approach to Iraq was in line with his predecessors. First, as Hollis's post amply illustrates, the Bush administration's policy towards Iraq and its WMD program was a continuation of Clinton's--a point that is conveniently forgotten in the on-going debate over OIF.
Second, Bush's national security policy is a continuation of the Clinton administration's determination to maintain a preponderance of power. In turn, the desire to keep America more powerful than anyone else finds its roots in the post-World War II policy of the Truman administration.
Third, as documented by the Iraqi Perspectives Project
here, Saddam's WMD program was a pillar of his domestic political power. If one considers the fact that Saddam feared rebellion from within above all else, it stands to reason that he could not let his supporters know that his big stick was a sham--had he done so, many would have had second thoughts of the sacrifices they'd made on his behalf.
Many of his own supporters believed Saddam had WMDs as late as December 2002, and some, even beyond that date. Is it not possible that the only way that his programs could have been proved to be shadows of their former selves was through the type of inspections that Saddam could never have allowed?
Fourth, and a point that I wish the president had done more to communicate, is the fact that Saddam drew inspiration from both Hitler and Stalin: surely the two greatest enemies America has ever had. In my view, such an affinity for tyranny goes beyond differing value systems and political beliefs. To me, a leader of a sovereign state who holds these views, has repeatedly demonstrated a capacity for aggression, and is in defiant breach of agreements he signed with his own hand should not be taken lightly.
Finally, and this point is more rhetorical point than historical, one could make an argument that America has rarely entered a war for the 'right' reasons. But it would be even harder to argue that America has entered the wrong side of a conflict. Aristotle argued that doing the right thing required the right motivation. However, I wonder if a president's decision to fight the right war for the so-called 'wrong' reasons is sometimes better than deciding not to fight at all?
Looking forward to getting back to my firefight. 
The professor managed to lose all sense of objectivity about 15 minutes into his lecture, which he refers to as a discussion. Our discussions are the verbal equivalent of a fill in the blank questionaire. Professor asks leading questions to which the sheep can usually reply to quite easily. I think there's only one person in the class who has an idea of what's going on in the world, and he's quite liberal. I look forward to mixing it up with him.
Linear Mode
