Monday, February 09, 2004
Why I supported the Iraq War
Iraq had been under UN sanctions for over a decade. During that time, the life of the average Iraqi was HORRIBLY affected, with children dying of malnutrition or preventable illness (though the exact number is a subject of debate, even if the fact that deaths have occurred is not) since the start of the sanctions.
Why did we isolate the country? Because we were scared of its leader, a guy who had invaded TWO of his neighbors (which SHOULD be the source of some nasty deja-vu for Europeans), and had been MONTHS away from the creation of a nuclear weapon. This guy was DANGEROUS (side note: yes, we did, back him in his war with Iran, which was a STUPID thing to do; it doesn't make Saddam Hussein any less dangerous). He'd shown what he would do when left free to do what he wanted, and the LAST thing we would EVER do is let him out of his UN-created cage.
So, sanctions would be indefinite. I wouldn't want a Saddam Hussein free to do what he wants, and neither would any European if they sat down and really thought about it.
Osama bin Laden cited a number things as justification for Sept. 11th, among them the death of Iraqi children from the UN sanctions (already discussed), and the presence of Americans in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). Why were we in Saudi Arabia? To defend Saudi Arabia, the second biggest provider of oil to the United States, from a militaristic Saddam Hussein.
Oil matters. If Europe or America lost its second biggest source of oil (in Europe's case, Saudi Arabia is the LARGEST source of oil), you likely wouldn't be reading this article because you'd have a lot less time to spend on the internet (energy would be MUCh more expensive). Oil drives airplanes that link the globe, and allow you to do things like take vacations in Cancun. Oil is IMPORTANT to the health of the economy, and THAT MATTERS.
(Side note for the benefit of America's Republicans: That doesn't mean I support Anwar drilling, because I think oil is TOO important and we would benefit greatly from higher taxes on gasoline to REDUCE THE DEPENDENCE, but that's a different issue entirely. In other words, there are better ways to reduce dependence than to dig up a bunch of undeveloped land in Alaska)
We wanted to a) end sanctions, and b) get the heck out of Saudi Arabia, where we obviously weren't wanted.
Maintaining the sanctions cost countries such as France and Germany very little, as America (and to a certain extent, Britain) footed most of the bill for maintaining things like no-fly zones and support bases in Saudi Arabia. In addition, we wanted reduce the frictions (our presence) that contributed to the desire in some quarters to send planes into tall American buildings.
Another reason I supported an invasion was in order to break the cycle of dictatorship and poverty that seems endless in the middle east. Oil isn't going to be a source of revenue with which to develop economies in the region forever. A hydrogen economy was recently estimated as 20-30 years out. That doesn't surprise me, as moving to hydrogen would involve a massive investment in new infrastructure. Still, 20-30 years isn't much time for these countries to use oil revenues to raise their citizens out of poverty and build an economy that ISN'T dependent on oil.
Save for Turkey, there are no democratic and free nations in the middle east. This is a problem, as unfree, despotic states AREN'T going to raise their people out of poverty, much less spend oil revenue properly. So, why not build a democracy at the historic heart of the the middle east (Baghdad WAS the seat of the sultans during Islam's golden age, back when they had things like algebra, law courts, freedom of religion and advanced astronomy while the the Vikings were terrorizing Europe, scientific inquiery was all but non-existent and serfdom was the standard model of social organization), and try to start it on the path of doing things that make its people wealthy. We did that in South Korea. Few South Koreans look north and wished they'd ended up on the other side of the demilitarized zone, or ended up like South Vietnam after America pulled out. We managed to get Germany and Japan on a democratic, and wealthy, path. It's not a completely crazy idea, and our track record of success is pretty good.
To put it simply, I think that if we believe a government is SO dangerous that we would consider isolating an entire country from the global economy (thus impoverishing the citizens of that country), the FAR more humane thing to do is change the government and allow the citizens of that nation to contribute to the world as opposed to forcing them to face the consequences for a powerful minority who do NOT feel the pain of the sanctions. One of Saddam Hussein's sons visited the Iraqi national bank, which is the economic equivalent of America's federal reserve, shortly before the war and withdrew a billion dollars. Imagine Jenna Bush heading down to meet with Alan Greenspan and withdrawing 370 billion dollars in cash (which is equivalent of 1/27th of the American economy, which was the percentage of the Iraqi economy Saddam's 1 billion represented). Iraq wasn't even remotely a healthy regime, and Uday's bank withdrawal is merely one particularly illustrative instance in a history that showed Saddam Hussein viewed Iraq as his own personal playground.
That's why I supported the invasion of Iraq.
Iraq had been under UN sanctions for over a decade. During that time, the life of the average Iraqi was HORRIBLY affected, with children dying of malnutrition or preventable illness (though the exact number is a subject of debate, even if the fact that deaths have occurred is not) since the start of the sanctions.
Why did we isolate the country? Because we were scared of its leader, a guy who had invaded TWO of his neighbors (which SHOULD be the source of some nasty deja-vu for Europeans), and had been MONTHS away from the creation of a nuclear weapon. This guy was DANGEROUS (side note: yes, we did, back him in his war with Iran, which was a STUPID thing to do; it doesn't make Saddam Hussein any less dangerous). He'd shown what he would do when left free to do what he wanted, and the LAST thing we would EVER do is let him out of his UN-created cage.
So, sanctions would be indefinite. I wouldn't want a Saddam Hussein free to do what he wants, and neither would any European if they sat down and really thought about it.
Osama bin Laden cited a number things as justification for Sept. 11th, among them the death of Iraqi children from the UN sanctions (already discussed), and the presence of Americans in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). Why were we in Saudi Arabia? To defend Saudi Arabia, the second biggest provider of oil to the United States, from a militaristic Saddam Hussein.
Oil matters. If Europe or America lost its second biggest source of oil (in Europe's case, Saudi Arabia is the LARGEST source of oil), you likely wouldn't be reading this article because you'd have a lot less time to spend on the internet (energy would be MUCh more expensive). Oil drives airplanes that link the globe, and allow you to do things like take vacations in Cancun. Oil is IMPORTANT to the health of the economy, and THAT MATTERS.
(Side note for the benefit of America's Republicans: That doesn't mean I support Anwar drilling, because I think oil is TOO important and we would benefit greatly from higher taxes on gasoline to REDUCE THE DEPENDENCE, but that's a different issue entirely. In other words, there are better ways to reduce dependence than to dig up a bunch of undeveloped land in Alaska)
We wanted to a) end sanctions, and b) get the heck out of Saudi Arabia, where we obviously weren't wanted.
Maintaining the sanctions cost countries such as France and Germany very little, as America (and to a certain extent, Britain) footed most of the bill for maintaining things like no-fly zones and support bases in Saudi Arabia. In addition, we wanted reduce the frictions (our presence) that contributed to the desire in some quarters to send planes into tall American buildings.
Another reason I supported an invasion was in order to break the cycle of dictatorship and poverty that seems endless in the middle east. Oil isn't going to be a source of revenue with which to develop economies in the region forever. A hydrogen economy was recently estimated as 20-30 years out. That doesn't surprise me, as moving to hydrogen would involve a massive investment in new infrastructure. Still, 20-30 years isn't much time for these countries to use oil revenues to raise their citizens out of poverty and build an economy that ISN'T dependent on oil.
Save for Turkey, there are no democratic and free nations in the middle east. This is a problem, as unfree, despotic states AREN'T going to raise their people out of poverty, much less spend oil revenue properly. So, why not build a democracy at the historic heart of the the middle east (Baghdad WAS the seat of the sultans during Islam's golden age, back when they had things like algebra, law courts, freedom of religion and advanced astronomy while the the Vikings were terrorizing Europe, scientific inquiery was all but non-existent and serfdom was the standard model of social organization), and try to start it on the path of doing things that make its people wealthy. We did that in South Korea. Few South Koreans look north and wished they'd ended up on the other side of the demilitarized zone, or ended up like South Vietnam after America pulled out. We managed to get Germany and Japan on a democratic, and wealthy, path. It's not a completely crazy idea, and our track record of success is pretty good.
To put it simply, I think that if we believe a government is SO dangerous that we would consider isolating an entire country from the global economy (thus impoverishing the citizens of that country), the FAR more humane thing to do is change the government and allow the citizens of that nation to contribute to the world as opposed to forcing them to face the consequences for a powerful minority who do NOT feel the pain of the sanctions. One of Saddam Hussein's sons visited the Iraqi national bank, which is the economic equivalent of America's federal reserve, shortly before the war and withdrew a billion dollars. Imagine Jenna Bush heading down to meet with Alan Greenspan and withdrawing 370 billion dollars in cash (which is equivalent of 1/27th of the American economy, which was the percentage of the Iraqi economy Saddam's 1 billion represented). Iraq wasn't even remotely a healthy regime, and Uday's bank withdrawal is merely one particularly illustrative instance in a history that showed Saddam Hussein viewed Iraq as his own personal playground.
That's why I supported the invasion of Iraq.
