Isolationism didn't work for Wilson's era and it is a much smaller world now than it was then. I don't remember who said "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it". In this new computer age we have become used to immediate results. Doesn't work that way with people, countries or for those that have to do the work with their hands. Thanks for the post it is nice to see some common sense and logic applied to the debate instead of nostalgic 60's emotion.

"More than 2,000 people have died because the decision was made that removing Saddam Hussein was in the national security interests of the United States"
So what does that make the tens of thousands of Iraqis that perished; non-human?

"When the entire world thinks that Saddam has WMDs"
Didn't happen before the invasion and sure aint gonna happen now

"Whether or not Iraq actually possessed WMDs is immaterial"
Yep you just needed to kick some butt

Enjoy paying the taxes the $2-3 trillion diaster has cost you

whou, how could become a country so blind like the us... I feel bad for the death soldiers, they died for innorant people not for freedom...

America went to war on the premise that Iraq Has Weapons of Mass Destruction .... NOT! ... of course, a whole new agenda had to be systematically injected into the media after the initial reasons turned out to be a whole load of horse shit... the clear cut mission you _want_ to point to is just a load of baloney, and nothing more than a face-saving service.

"Establish a viable democracy..."

This is beyond the scope of what a military force is capable of doing.

I agree, though, that we shouldn't pull out until this is established. Unfortunately, the military cannot complete this part of the mission by themselves.

Reason for invading Iraq? Isn't anyone going to mention Bechtel and Halliburton who picked up no-bid goverment contracts to 're-build' Iraq. Iraq was used as an excuse to exponge billions of tax payer's dollars. Dick Cheney used to head Halliburton, simply a coincidence?

AndyC
My taxes will cover the costs, and that's fine. I don't have a problem paying them. The Iraqi casualties are regretable, but unavoidable. The millions who survived and have the chance at a better future now are who we need to focus our attentions on.

eokyere
Its a complete myth that we only went to war because of Iraq possessing WMDs. This was only one in a list of reasons, which included that he possessed the capability to reconstitute his WMD program (which is not disputed), that he had defied over 10 years worth of UN resolutions requiring his compliance with weapons inspectors (which is not disputed), that he had used WMDs in the past on his own people and the Iranians (which is not disputed), that he had brutally repressed the majority of his population (which is not disputed), that he had sponsored and supported terrorist organizations (which doesn't mean Al Qaeda, and which is also not disputed) and that his continued presence in Iraq constituted a threat to the entire region because of his unpredictability (which was a subjective determination). Those are all good reasons for removing him, regardless of whether or not he had WMDs. And they were all listed time and time again by the Bush Administration prior to and after the war began.

The argument that WMDs was the only reason we went in is just plain wrong. As wrong as our belief that Saddam had them.

GPG

You're right. But the good thing is, the Iraqis seem to be doing a fine job of that for themselves so far.

Seth

The no-bid contracts are smoke screens. The government uses no-bid contracts frequently when there is no other company that has the expertise needed to complete the mission, or when they've got a working relationship and need to move something quickly. Halliburton had been specializing in providing support to the armed services overseas for years - long before they picked up Dick Cheney as their President. They had contracts under the Clinton Administration for servicing the troops in Bosnia. One of the reasons they made Cheney their CEO was because their focus was on growing their defense business, and he was a former Secretary of Defense. So, in so far as that goes, it is coincidence.

Not everything that happens in politics is a conspiracy, and not everything that makes sense on paper actually happened.

If there had been any wrong doing on the part of the administration, the Justice Department would have gone after them - they've been more than willing to go after the Administration in things like the Plame case. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't go after them here.

Good and thoughtful comments in the above article and the answers posted to the comments. We would all like a world where there were no wars, no terror, no conflict; but we do not live in that world and will not get there by being passive in the face of the aggression that is now in the world in various forms. True and lasting change does take time and have a cost. The cost of passivity though in this world will be greater, and the results to our country negative.

This opinion has all the rhetoric and chest beating of a tired and flatulent Bruce Willis and Arnie script and they are never believable. You've got to realise that this post is read (via fullasagoog) by a pretty well educated, informed international community. You have managed to portray US foreign policy as belligerent, egocentric, and xenophobic. In a country that holds itself up as a beacon of democracy, only 64% of the eligible voters vote, the lines between corporations, politics and Hollywood are indistinguishable, blind nationalistic faith seems to be the norm. This may work fine for the average American but unfortunately there is a far greater impact felt in the rest of the world economically, culturally and politically. It is just too easy for people to get complacent and ignorant about the harder issues. If you have any duty at all, it is to question the decisions of the politicians and spin of the media. 'Doubt tempers belief with sanity' Barbara Kruger.
As for Iraq 'you broke it you fix it' .

MarkH

I understand that my readership is international.

US foreign policy is no more belligerent, egocentric or xenophobic than any other nation's foreign policy. It is our government's responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the United States, and when it comes to issues of security, what is in the national security interests of the US. That's not egocentric. That's good foreign policy.

We shouldn't be getting involved in situations where we don't have an interest. To believe that we should would open us up to the charges you're making.

Each country makes this determination itself. Great Britain does what is in her interests, as does Australia. As does Germany, as does France, and everyone else.

When a nation's internal policies begin to effect those around them, or when they are in control of a vital natural resource that the entire world needs, it's to be expected that they will be held to a higher standard. The fact that non-Americans care about our foreign policy is testament to that.

Iraq also gives the U.S. geostrategic leverage. In light of Turkey's decision to not allow U.S. to stage and our abandonment of the Prince Sultan base in SA, the invasion of Iraq makes sense. I could care less what Hussein did in the past - I worry more about what Iran and Syria will do in the future. All the swamp rats in the anti-war movement can move to Iran. 2000 dead - say 15000 Iraqis dead - nothing compared to a war head lobbed at Europe or Israel. And once that happens, our ant-war swamp rats will bemoan why the U.S. economy tanked.

The only nation who actually wage war angainst defenceless nations are the USA.I less fear an atomic Iran than the US, the only nation who used a nuclear weapon.
Cowardice,egocentric,immoral and illegal,such are the "values" of the US foreign policy. Morons like TheDCguy feel it easier to trust the governement, instead of trying to understand what's it about. For example, if you don't want Iran to build atomic weapons, why not show an exemple, and dismantle your own arsenal, Israel's arsenal, France's arsenal...

The US don't follow international laws (since Bush, but even so before), don't respect human right, neither abroad nor at home (US has the most prisonner of the world, essentialy innocent drug consumers).

Every time the US has a problem at home, they wage a war abroad (war on drugs, war on terror).

Shame on supporter of the Bush administration,you're the terrorist supporter,and your victims lives a 9/11 every day, on behalf of your cowardly armed forces or secret services.

Terrorism is only a little threat, overplayed by the Bush administration and the military-industrial lobby, so to be supported by morons like theDCguy, so Halliburton can make money, and the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz clique can stay in power.

We will see the day, 2008 perhaps, where Bush will cancel election for national security reasons.

They hate our freedom, said Bush, so let be less free: Patriot Act, domestic spying, election cancelling. They don't hate your freedom, they contest your foreign policy,which consist by taking wealth away from third countries, making money and building an empire!

Look at "Project for a new american century"! It's from Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz and other chicken hawks. They write they need a Pearl Harbour to speed up militarization. Can you say "Reichstag Brandt ?"

Fear, fear and fear.Instead of be afraid,try to be informed.Why should Iran bomb it's neighbours or Europe?And Syria, it's a defenceless nation.The only warhead you can be afraid of, are these in the hand of your administration, moron and misled Bush and the neocon misleading cabal!

YOU GUYS ARE STUPID IF WE DID NOT DO ANYTHING WE WOULD NO LONGER BE A FREE COUNTRY IT WAS OUR WAR WE ALREADY TRIED ONCE IN 1991 IN DESSERT STROM AND HE WAS A THREAT

Just what is so bad about being passive in the face of aggression? We could just declare ourselves a neutral country and never go to war no matter what the rest of the world is doing. That's what Switzerland did, and they're doing just fine!!