IRAQ Right or Wrong?
When we did the original invasion of the Middle East many years ago to free the Kurds a lot of people wondered why we didn’t march into Iraq and just kick Saddam out, which we didn’t.
I guess some felt Saddam was the lesser of two evils or maybe we couldn’t get permission from the other Arab allies.
That decision was made by the first President Bush, the father. This year the Son, our new President Bush, decided to finish the job and a lot of people were opposed to the idea before it happened.
I, at first, thought we were going to get our butts kicked in Afghanistan, but that turned out to be all wrong. My assumption was based on the fact that the Russians got a real whipping in the 1980s.
We were told by President Bush and by the Prime Minster of England that Iraq and Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Serious ones. Nerve gas, possibly nuclear devises and missiles to send them flying towards, what, the U.S.?
We didn’t see any of these in the first Iraq conflict and Israel was ready for them, as they would have been a prime target for Saddam’s wrath.
To date now the U.S. has lost more than 200 soldiers in the Iraq conflict, which is a little how we use to refer to that conflict of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s called Vietnam. We ended up staying there far to long to protect American soil from the “evil communists” who never became very evil. Oh, and those dominoes did eventually fall, starting with the Berlin wall, which was something no one, including the first President Bush, ever expected to occur.
Now we are being told our presence in Iraq could be as long as 5 years. That is starting to sound like a new Vietnam. And, as with Vietnam, the locals don’t really want us around. It is starting to look like we are going to install a “puppet” government instead of letting them choose their own leaders under U.N. voting supervision. That can bring a big disaster for American soil as we have already seen what independent radicals did with 9-11. Remember, no one can prove Saddam, who was a very organized radical, had anything to do with that action. It was private radicals who are not a formal member of any Arab factions or states that did 9-11 and we are letting ourselves be open to more of this from the disenfranchised elements who gain a distaste for American intervention.
The British tried to do what we are doing in the 1940s and it didn’t work too well. Arab militants started shoot at British peacekeepers, as well as their “Zionist” enemies. The longer Americans stay in Iraq the longer they remain targets and ill-will could grow. Right now not too many people are all that angry at us for getting rid of Saddam, who was an oppressive minority. The problem is we’re not exactly happen with the new majority who might take over in Iraq. Well, maybe President Bush and the British Prime Minster should have given that fact a little thought before they decided to get rid of Saddam.
When the iron rule of the U.S.S.R. ended in many areas, small warring factions like the Serbs and Croats started doing major bloodshed. The iron rule of the evils communists kept that from happening, just like the iron rule of Saddam kept that from happening in Iraq. As with Lebanon, we might see civil war factions break out for control in Iraq and if we remain there we might lose another Army barracks as happened in Lebanon when radical factions drove a truck full of explosives into a bunker of sleeping U.S. soldiers, which hastened our departure from that land.
Do we need to learn another of these lessons? The sooner we clear out from Iraq the safer our own people and soil will probably be and if we don’t like the way politics turns out in that country, well another President can maybe invade them again in the future to remove the new, evil, oppressive forces.
If we stay too long we might just find we have another bloody Vietnam on our hands in which you won’t know friend from enemy.