up and down sides
Reader comment on item: What If the United States Had Not Invaded Iraq

Submitted by John Philips (Japan), Sep 13, 2005 at 01:56

War is politics by other means. Winning militarily but losing politically is losing.

And we are not winning militarily: al-Qa'ida (remember them? the enemy?) is stronger and spreading.

Sure, the Iraqis are better off without Hussein, but how is that our problem when he was not a threat to us? Meanwhile, there are far worse tyrants ruling North Korea, Myanmar and Equatorial Guinea, and other countries.

The first duty of any government is to defend itself.

Four years after the Fort Sumter attack Lee had surrendered and the Confederacy was history. Four years after the Pearl Harbor attack Tojo had surrendered and the Japanese military was history. Four years after 9/11 Bush couldn't even handle a natural disaster that had been predicted for years and that we could all see coming on satellite images.

Meanwhile, our human, military enemy has not been vanquished but is stronger.

I do agree that there is an upside and a downside to the Iraq invasion, but I disagree that the upside is bigger. The ever shifting official justifications for the war would not be needed if the war had, in fact, been a good idea.

---

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.