Iraq's plight not a coalition responsibility nor danger to the West

Submitted by Elan Rubinstein (United States), Feb 28, 2006 at 15:15

I have several comments:
1) By attacking Iraq, America created that country's current plight, and the danger of a civil war that may draw in neighboring countries, to destabilize the entire region.
2) There is no 'coalition', much less Bush' 'coalition of the willing.'
3) Iraq plight not a coalition responsibility? We broke it, now we own the problem.
4) Not a particular danger to the West? Iraq is a training ground for terrorists, and wasn't that before the invasion.
5) WMD arsenal? None located, despite much effort.
6) Aspiring to control the trade in oil and gas? Other nations in the region have done this, so why single out Iraq?
7) By toppling Hussein, Washington bestowed a historic benefit on Iraqis? It is difficult to see the benefit amid the chaos.
8) Six week victory remains a glory of American foreign policy? No, it a shameful page in American history.
9) 'Free and democratic Iraq' is a noble aim inspired by the best of America's idealism? No, this is arrogant nation building that has sapped America of its moral power internally and internationally.
10) Iraqis disinclined to follow the American example? Is it morally right to attack first, and then discover this disclinication?
11) Coalition cannot impose its will on 26 million Iraqis? Is 'imposing its will' really what the invasion and occupation is about?
12) Coalition achievement will be to limited to destroying tyranny, not sponsoring its replacement? America has destabilized this region of the world, and thereby made the world notably less safe for all.
13) Landmark of international sanitation? There are many tyrannical regimes in the world: Will America attack them all or only some of them? Which one next? By whose authority?
14) Damage done by Saddam will take many years to repair? What of the damage done by America to regional stability? What of the damage done by America to its own moral standing? How long will it take to heal those wounds?
15) Civil war in Iraq would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one? You are saying that destabilizing the middle east is without strategic implications?

---

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".