Monday, October 20, 2003

The War in Iraq

Well Robert Novak writes a skillful article today. He starts with one issue I’ve noticed as well, which is that the Republicans in Congress are unsatisfied to follow in lockstep with the President. In particular he cites Sen. Dick Lugar’s dissatisfaction with the many voices coming out of this administration. On Meet The Press, Sen. Lugar stated “The president has to be president. That means the president over the vice president and over these secretaries (of State and Defense)."

But then he weaves in a second issue, which I do not agree with. Bad Mr. Novak! He writes on how many more conservative senators are of the opinion that Iraq should be loaned the money rather than given it. In other words, we blew the hell out of Iraq, but they should have to pay the recovery. There are two things wrong with this particular scheme as I’ve outlined before. It’s wrong and it’s stupid.

It’s wrong because we blew the hell out of Iraq to protect ourselves. If this had been a mutual war, if Saddam had done something stupid, well, that might be different. But that’s not what happened. We invaded to protect ourselves from those scary WMDs (anybody know how that’s going, by the way?), not to liberate the Iraqi people.

It’s stupid because our long term goals in Iraq are a stable democratic society that is a friend of the United States. Or at least that’s what we keep saying. Any government who agrees to pay us back for the privilege of invading them is going to fall. Nobody would stand for that injustice. The Iraqi people would see the government as the puppets of the United States (not a bad assumption if they agree to that particular scheme.

So, to sum up, making Iraq pay to rebuild itself--Immoral and unintelligent.

No comments: