Three purposes for America's policy?
Reader comment on item: [Samuel Huntington and] American Purposes In Iraq

Submitted by Martin Schulberg (United States), Apr 27, 2004 at 18:05

The last sentence which states that America's policy should be to stop a country or government from being a danger to the United States is too broad. Does it include and justify our currently being in Iraq? The stated WMD reason was and is false. If Sadaam was a symbol that needed to be eradicated then we could have justified our country's action on much more solid ground. Invasion of Kuwait (unfinished business), Gassing of the Kurds, attack of Scuds on Israel (I'm joking of course), repression of Shiites etc. We nevertheless bungled the PR and we are stuck in a morass that is of our own doing. No matter what we attempt to say, one thing remains incontrovertible, Iraq did not represent a physical and imminent danger to our country.

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.