Off topic: Iraq War commentary

[Guest guest]

This is one of the better commentaries I have seen on the war. It seems to

put to rest some of the spin which is irritating many of us.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

601 First Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

drscott@...

or

info@...

This is probably copywritten from the New York Times.

Please refer to them if you forward this.

Their website is:

http://www.nytimes.com/

New York Times

L. Friedman, Op-Ed Columnist

³Because We Could²

Iraq: United States Armament and Defense

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction

(W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we

should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and

it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason,

the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The " real reason " for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11

America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't

enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ‹ a bubble that

posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be

punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World

Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K.,

having state-run newspapers call people who did such things " martyrs " was

O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such " martyrs " was

O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical

Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the

Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were

ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and

women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and

make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open

society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi

Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple

reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was

right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this

had no effect. Every neighboring government ‹ and 98 percent of terrorism is

about what governments let happen ‹ got the message. If you talk to U.S.

soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

The " right reason " for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis,

post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of

mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real

weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young

Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states ‹ young

people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent

Iraq as a model for others ‹ and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ‹

are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which

are what really threaten us.

The " moral reason " for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of

mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people,

and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the

war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for

the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the

notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate

threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat

to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the

nation to war " on the wings of a lie. " I argued that Mr. Bush should fight

this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this

W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of

Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any

W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to

admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the

country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence

for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America

and be a very serious matter.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to

preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the

C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one

whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would

use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq

onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism

bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility

rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the

Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

[Guest guest]

This is an earlier post I found of interest and am resending it.

Vern Saboe

Off topic: Iraq War commentary

>

>

> > This is one of the better commentaries I have seen on the war. It seems

to

> > put to rest some of the spin which is irritating many of us.

> >

> > E. Abrahamson, D.C.

> > Chiropractic physician

> > Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

> > 601 First Street

> > Lake Oswego, OR 97034

> > 503-635-6246

> >

> > drscott@...

> > or

> > info@...

> >

> >

> > This is probably copywritten from the New York Times.

> > Please refer to them if you forward this.

> > Their website is:

> >

> > http://www.nytimes.com/

> >

> > New York Times

> > L. Friedman, Op-Ed Columnist

> > ³Because We Could²

> > Iraq: United States Armament and Defense

> >

> > The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction

> > (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real

story

> we

> > should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and

> > it's the wrong issue now.

> >

> > Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real

> reason,

> > the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

> >

> > The " real reason " for this war, which was never stated, was that after

> 9/11

> > America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan

wasn't

> > enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there < a bubble

that

> > posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be

> > punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the

> World

> > Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K.,

> > having state-run newspapers call people who did such things " martyrs "

was

> > O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such " martyrs " was

> > O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among

radical

> > Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between

the

> > Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists

were

> > ready to die.

> >

> > The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and

> > women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house,

and

> > make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open

> > society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi

> > Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple

> > reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was

> > right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that

this

> > had no effect. Every neighboring government < and 98 percent of

terrorism

> is

> > about what governments let happen < got the message. If you talk to U.S.

> > soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

> >

> > The " right reason " for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis,

> > post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real

weapons

> of

> > mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real

> > weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated

young

> > Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states <

> young

> > people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a

> decent

> > Iraq as a model for others < and solving the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict

> <

> > are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction,

which

> > are what really threaten us.

> >

> > The " moral reason " for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of

> > mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own

people,

> > and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

> >

> > But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for

the

> > war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support

> for

> > the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason:

> the

> > notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an

immediate

> > threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such

> threat

> > to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take

the

> > nation to war " on the wings of a lie. " I argued that Mr. Bush should

fight

> > this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with

> this

> > W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

> >

> > Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of

> > Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find

> any

> > W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to

> > admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took

the

> > country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the

evidence

> > for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage

> America

> > and be a very serious matter.

> >

> > But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to

> > preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and

the

> > C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one

> > whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he

> would

> > use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq

> > onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism

> > bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility

> > rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the

> > Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget

that.

> >

> >

> >

> > OregonDCs rules:

> > 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to

> foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve

memb

> ers will be tolerated.

> > 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.

> > 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere.

> However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward,

> or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without

his

> or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

> >

> >