Yes, but.....

Submitted by Rick Martins (China), Mar 20, 2013 at 09:20

Saddam was a danger to the world economy as you pointed out and that alone justified a " response" although I would have preferred handling according to the Arab culture- that is by assassinating Saddam. But Bush was naive as you also pointed out but let's give Bush some credit for his "vision".

Bush was always comfortable with Arabs due to his closeness to Big Oil and the Saudi regime. He did not look upon Arabs as hopelessly caught in a predetermined world of despotism due to their lack of any modern and democratic experience. I believe that Bush was a "dreamer" in the sense that he believed toppling Saddam and then ushering in a democratic government would "break the strangle hold" that Islam and backwardness has in the Arab Middle East. He tried to change the course of the river.

Was he foolish for doing so? I thought so before the invasion and that opinion unfortunately seems to be more credible than the one that foresees a positive outcome in Iraq. Obama has no illusions of "hope and change" in the Arab world and that belief suits his isolationism, anti-Americanism and Left wing foolishness.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".