84. BC:
It does not matter that there were “not that many” countries who supported us in the Iraq war. Mulilateralism is not a prerequisite when it comes to the United States of America looking after its own interests. In fact the doctrine of liberal multilateralism is fraught with folly since it can never be guaranteed that a consensus will be obtained on the nature of any external threat, nor will the liberal democracies whose approval and support we seek always be willing to run the same risks in overcoming such threats.
We simply cannot make our policy hostage to the lowest common denominator of either a UN or even a NATO consensus. The idea that we must seek UN approval is perhaps the most ridiculous of all the arguments leveled at the Bush administration. The UN is a hopelessly worthless organization, since its members are also comprised of some of the most corrupt and oppressive nations on Earth, with whom we share no common interests whatsoever.
I must also take issue with your fixation on the issue of WMD’s – you know as well as I do that WMD’s were not the reason why we went to war, although it is true of course that they were perhaps overemphasized for the purposes of selling the war. The Authorization for the Use of Force bill begins with 23 “whereas” clauses justifying the war. Only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.
The reason for invading Iraq was overwhelmingly: regime change. Contrary to your insinuation that the Democrats were “duped” into supporting the war by misleading intelligence, they did in fact both support and call for regime change right from the first Gulf War, something that Bush Senior failed to do. In fact here is a video of Al Gore in 1992 criticizing him for ignoring Saddam’s ties to terrorism and his attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction:
Saddam had nuclear intentions and the 1981 bombing of his nuclear facilities by Israel was an act of prudence without which he almost certainly would have possessed nuclear weapons upon his invasion of Kuwait. He was certainly in the process of rekindling his nuclear ambitions when we invaded Iraq. The book “The Bomb in My Garden” by Mahdi Obeidi, an ex-nuclear scientist under Saddam, confirms this:
http://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471679658
Those who believe there was no need for regime change in Iraq are sorely lacking in wisdom. I also find incredible your insinuation that France’s opposition to the war was based upon their superior assessment of the situation, when it is obvious that they had friendly relationship with Hussein and a vested interest in letting him remain in power. Food for oil anyone?
The wisdom of the Bush administration can be seen in their recognition that our best interests lie in a stable and peaceful geopolitical balance – and that such a situation will only be achieved through the removal of rogue regimes and the spread of liberal democracy and free trade. Capitalist democracies do not make war with each other and have no reason to. It does not matter how much the left bleats and hoots about “Bush the war criminal” and “America the terrorist state” – an objective history will look kindly upon him, and unfavorably upon any subsequent President who fails to protect the seeds of Middle Eastern democracy that Bush planted.
