So abandonng the Iraqi people now that the war is over is a selfless move? Sounds pretty selfish and cowardly to me.

As with a good portion of western Europe and their governments, the Spanish have grown complacent and weak and their memories have begun to fail them. Spain, many moons ago, was a Muslim governed country. What better place to set an example than that? Muslim dictates say Muslims should rule Muslim ruled countries and land. Coincidence maybe, but France has also caught the attention and ire of the extremist factions regarding the banning of religious personal articles in public locales. This is only a start. The well documented mentality of western Europe is appeasement. Let Hitler keep going, he'll leave us be. Terrorism isn't about taking property or land. Terrorism is fascism. It is also genocide. With the installment of a new socialist government in Spain, finding and prosecuting members responsible would be a bad move for a country heavily considering removing its troops from the fray in the Middle East. An endorsement of Bush is seen only as a perverse attempt at reverse psychology. No real thinking human (endowed with common sense and emotion and foresight) would or could even give this a second thought. To endorse a president who has the annhilation of a sect bent on world and religious domination as an agenda for the rest of the free thinking world is as insane as world and religious domination. Find something more substantial to sink your teeth into. Like a peanut butter cookie.

Actually, even though I opposed the War in Iraq, I think leaving Iraq would be even more disastrous than invading it. The Spanish action isn't selfless, it's just that it's not based on giving in to terrorists either. It's based on the fact that they opposed the war all along for strategic reasons -- as did most of the world.

Putting aside the Spanish government's cover up, the thinking of Spaniards probably goes something like this: We thought this war was a mistake, that it wouldn't make us safer. Now that we've seen how spectacularly correct we were, there's no way were giving you a second term -- good economy, or not.

The subsequent withdrawl of Spanish forces from Iraq was based on the Dennis-Kucinich-like reasoning that if you were against the war, you have to be against the occupation. Of course that's not necessarily true. The cost of prematurely ending the occupation would likely be much higher than either not having invaded or of continuing the occupation.

That's my biggest (current) problem with Bush: He wants to cut and run in Iraq. U.S. troop levels will down to a hundred thousand by June. Ahmed Chalabi has said that the transfer of power is scheduled to be completed before the U.S. election in November. A weakened Iraqi state may well yet become the next Afghanistan: a failed state with a Taliban style "government", loyal to Al Qaida.

Good point voodoostain.
I served in Iraq for four months. I am part of the Army Corps of Engineers stationed in Denver, CO. When we built a ten room clininc for less than $1000 in a suburb of Baghdad, the Iraqi people's smiles were ear to ear. Seeing firsthand the success of the war on terror, and the liberation of an opressed people, brings my support towards George W. Bush. And for the first author to say that terrorists endorsed Bush, its pure leftwing conspiracy theories. Perhaps the author should travel to Iraq and see firsthand. Nothing is more effective than seeing genuine smiles of the formerly opressed people. Or watch the History Channel, their programs accurately depict the liberation.

voodoostation:

As I said, I don't put any stock in these pronouncements. I use them only as a counter argument to those who say the Spanish were wrong because they gave Al Qaida what it wants.

Al Qaida operatives have -- I think you'll agree -- no special wisdom. Their opinion on who they'd rather be fighting (Bush/Kerry or Popular Party/Socialist Party) is pretty meaningless.

That being said, I'll have a subsequent post illustrating why I believe a second Bush term would be beneficial for Al Qaida.

Bryan Rodman:

Click on the link! The terrorist did endorse Bush. (See my reply to voodoostation for why I think it's irrelevant as far as who's best at combating terrorists).

As for your comments on the current situation in Iraq I completely agree. Creating a free and better life for those in the Middle East is crucial. If we in the West can help bring democracy and a decent standard of living to people they will be both fulfilled and grateful. Quite simply they will not be willing to allow terrorists from their countries to attack their new friends (us) and they will be unwilling to risk their new found happiness by allowing terrorists to provoke war. This is the only way to win the war against terrorism.

But those of us on the left feel that the Bush administration's policy jeopardize that goal for several reasons, such as:

*The policy is risky and could lead to Iraq becoming a terrorist harbouring failed stated like Afghanistan once the U.S. leaves.

*The U.S. government won't be willing to create a real democracy in Iraq because the people may elect a theocratic, anti-American party.

*The policy can't be repeated. If U.S. tried to invade other Arab countries to establish democracy, people would rise up against them because they don't want a foreign power -- any foreign power -- controling their entire region.

*Now countries have no incentive to cooperate peacefully because they know no matter what they do the U.S. may invade them anyway if the American government thinks it's in "U.S. interests".

The alternative that we on the left support is to force ALL the existing dictatorships in the region to democratize by withholding military aid, finanacial aid and by moving towards peace between Isreal and Palestine (this is the biggest rallying cry the dictators use to distract their people and maintain power).

All the while, the West -- not just the U.S. -- should remain vigilant, but only go to war against those countries that pose an actual threat.

Oh, man, I'm so glad to read this post before the election. "Al Qaida endorses Bush" title caught my eye for sure. I clicked the link! Read it too. Al Qaida is responsible for 9/11, and now they're endorsing Bush for President, well my patriotic duty won't allow me to vote for him, now that they're endorsing him. Not after what they did to us. I'm voting for Kerry now for sure. I'll show Al Qaida not to come out and show their hand like that. "EVERYBODY, 'A VOTE FOR BUSH, IS A VOTE FOR AL QAIDA'.

I'll show Al Qaida not to come out and show their hand like that. "EVERYBODY, 'A VOTE FOR BUSH, IS A VOTE FOR AL QAIDA'.

don't be silly. the republicans will tell you that a vote for kerry is a vote for osama: link

he did generously note that a vote for kerry would not be a vote for hitler.

Creating a free and better life for those in the Middle East is crucial.

If that's the case, then the Iraqi war was a good thing, as it's going to create a free and better life for those in the Middle East.

*The policy is risky and could lead to Iraq becoming a terrorist harbouring failed stated like Afghanistan once the U.S. leaves.

Only if we leave early.

*The U.S. government won't be willing to create a real democracy in Iraq because the people may elect a theocratic, anti-American party.

Just because you feel like this is true doesn't make it so, just like how I feel just because Europe hates the Jews that the European Union is an attempt at the Fourth Reich.

*The policy can't be repeated. If U.S. tried to invade other Arab countries to establish democracy, people would rise up against them because they don't want a foreign power -- any foreign power -- controling their entire region.

Were there plans to invade and install democracies in other Arab countries?

*Now countries have no incentive to cooperate peacefully because they know no matter what they do the U.S. may invade them anyway if the American government thinks it's in "U.S. interests".

We invaded Iraq because they cooperated peacefully or because he posed an actual threat?

The alternative that we on the left support is to force ALL the existing dictatorships in the region to democratize by withholding military aid, finanacial aid and by moving towards peace between Isreal and Palestine (this is the biggest rallying cry the dictators use to distract their people and maintain power).

I don't think sanctions worked in Iraq. Why would they work elsewhere? If anything, I'd see them as another excuse for Al Qaida to terrorize people. Also, that's easier said than done.

don't be silly. the republicans will tell you that a vote for kerry is a vote for osama

I think the smile at the end proved it was a joke.

Cheers

Super Baby:

A few points:

"Creating a free and better life for those in the Middle East is crucial."

"If that's the case, then the Iraqi war was a good thing, as it's going to create a free and better life for those in the Middle East."

The whole rest of my post was about how invading Iraq WON'T help do create a free and better life in the Middle East. The United States have routinely removed or tried to remove dictators only to have them replaced by even worse dictators. But here we're also talking about the rest of the Middle East.

"*The policy is risky and could lead to Iraq becoming a terrorist harbouring failed stated like Afghanistan once the U.S. leaves."

"Only if we leave early."

This risk will be prevalent no matter what. These intra-Iraqi conflicts are centuries old and won't go away anytime soon. Sure it's worse if the U.S. leaves early -- but that's already being done! Troops levels are being reduced; heavily by just this summer.

"*The U.S. government won't be willing to create a real democracy in Iraq because the people may elect a theocratic, anti-American party."

"Just because you feel like this is true doesn't make it so, just like how I feel just because Europe hates the Jews that the European Union is an attempt atthe Fourth Reich."

Come on. United States governments have done this time and again. Why will this time be any different? Furthermore the Bush administration is already subverting real democracy allowing the provisional Iraqi constitution to be written by U.S. appointees and by planning elections in which only local councils appointed by the U.S. can vote.

"*The policy can't be repeated. If U.S. tried to invade other Arab countries to establish democracy, people would rise up against them because they don't wanta foreign power -- any foreign power -- controling their entire region."

"Were there plans to invade and install democracies in other Arab countries?"

That's not the point. For any strategy in the war against terrorism to work it must work in countries other than Iraq. Bush's strategy would be distastrous if attempted elsewhere. (But since you asked: yes, there were pans to invade other countries. Richard Perle and others have advocated "regime change" for several countries -- by force if necessary.)

"*Now countries have no incentive to cooperate peacefully because they know no matter what they do the U.S. may invade them anyway if the American government thinks it's in 'U.S. interests'."

"We invaded Iraq because they cooperated peacefully or because he posed an actual threat?"

You really don't get it, do you? For 60 years global stability has been maintain by a strategy of detente: wage war only if war is waged by others, but always remain ready to defend one's self. This isn't just some touchy, feely nonesense. The idea is to give non-democratic states an INCENTIVE not to attack each other, or us. Stay inside your own broders or we'll bomb you back to the neolithic era -- but if you behave, you'll be left alone.

The system is beautiful in it's elegance. The West can't wage war against every dictatorial regime that chooses to invade it's neighbour, but by promising not to invade other countries unless they do so first, the West can dramatically reduce the number of other countries that will choose to invade their neighbours. George Bush destroyed that incentive system with one order.

Some say that while the U.S. can't go to war against every evil dictatorship, why not just this one? But that's the whole point: attacking even one country that didn't pose a threat -- and it didn't pose a threat -- the Bush administration has said 'anyone could be next'. Some countries will back off in fear (such as Lybia), but others will become more aggressive (such as North Korea). It only takes one.

Now no nation can feel secure that they won't be invaded if they don't pose a threat to anyone else. Iraq didn't (as evil as Saddam may have been).

"The alternative that we on the left support is to force ALL the existing dictatorships in the region to democratize by withholding military aid, finanacial aid andby moving towards peace between Isreal and Palestine (this is the biggest rallying cry the dictators use to distract their people and maintain power)."

"I don't think sanctions worked in Iraq. Why would they work elsewhere? If anything, I'd see them as another excuse for Al Qaida to terrorize people. Also,that's easier said than done."

I'm not suggesting sanctions. Many Middle Eastern regimes actually depend directly on the United States for their survival.

The whole rest of my post was about how invading Iraq WON'T help do create a free and better life in the Middle East. The United States have routinely removed or tried to remove dictators only to have them replaced by even worse dictators. But here we're also talking about the rest of the Middle East.

How many of those times involved the U.S. having an active presence in creating a democracy?

This risk will be prevalent no matter what. These intra-Iraqi conflicts are centuries old and won't go away anytime soon. Sure it's worse if the U.S. leaves early -- but that's already being done! Troops levels are being reduced; heavily by just this summer.

Reducing the levels of troops is not leaving anymore than a business that reduces its amount of workers is going out of business.

Come on. United States governments have done this time and again. Why will this time be any different? Furthermore the Bush administration is already subverting real democracy allowing the provisional Iraqi constitution to be written by U.S. appointees and by planning elections in which only local councils appointed by the U.S. can vote.

We're not in a Cold War. That's the difference. Also, democracies take time, which is why the U.S. will be supervising and running it for awhile.

You really don't get it, do you? For 60 years global stability has been maintain by a strategy of detente: wage war only if war is waged by others, but always remain ready to defend one's self. This isn't just some touchy, feely nonesense. The idea is to give non-democratic states an INCENTIVE not to attack each other, or us. Stay inside your own broders or we'll bomb you back to the neolithic era -- but if you behave, you'll be left alone. The system is beautiful in it's elegance. The West can't wage war against every dictatorial regime that chooses to invade it's neighbour, but by promising not to invade other countries unless they do so first, the West can dramatically reduce the number of other countries that will choose to invade their neighbours. George Bush destroyed that incentive system with one order. Some say that while the U.S. can't go to war against every evil dictatorship, why not just this one? But that's the whole point: attacking even one country that didn't pose a threat -- and it didn't pose a threat -- the Bush administration has said 'anyone could be next'. Some countries will back off in fear (such as Lybia), but others will become more aggressive (such as North Korea). It only takes one. Now no nation can feel secure that they won't be invaded if they don't pose a threat to anyone else. Iraq didn't (as evil as Saddam may have been).

Hussein did invade a neighbor, and so we waged war with him, and then allowed him to stay in power, but required him to cooperate with us on many things with which he hasn't cooperated for twelve years. Is that behaving? If Hussein not cooperating with what allowed him to remain in power, shooting at planes, believing he had WMDs (which shows an intent in developing WMDs) isn't a threat, etc. then what is? It's not as if we attacked him willy nilly.
Besides, Europe already betrayed the system when it went in to stop Milosevic not from invading others, but from ridding his own country of people he didn't want.

I'm not suggesting sanctions. Many Middle Eastern regimes actually depend directly on the United States for their survival.

If they depend on the U.S., how will withholding aid help them? If anything, it'll compel more people to hate the U.S. and commit more acts of terrorism.

jeblackstar:

I think the smile at the end proved it was a joke. Cheers

i know. but i thought the real-life "a vote for kerry is a vote for osama, but not a vote for hitler" statement was funny enough as a response.

:: sighs:: I too was joking, alas, forum posts just don't provide the same level of irony the spoken word does.

Cheers

Super Baby:

"Hussein did invade a neighbor, and so we waged war with him, and then allowed him to stay in power, but required him to cooperate with us on many things with which he hasn't cooperated for twelve years. Is that behaving? If Hussein not cooperating with what allowed him to remain in power, shooting at planes, believing he had WMDs (which shows an intent in developing WMDs) isn't a threat, etc. then what is? It's not as if we attacked him willy nilly.Besides, Europe already betrayed the system when it went in to stop Milosevic not from invading others, but from ridding his own country of people he didn't want."

I agree that the United States should have given far more consideration to getting rid of Hussein the first time. That being said...

I don't believe for a moment that Saddam Hussein thought he still had weapons of mass destruction. My father is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation journalist and was on the ground with UN inspectors in Iraq. He said that it was obvious that there was no on going production of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons as such production requires large facilities. UN inspectors said as much, but couldn't absolutely rule out the mobile-bioweapons-lab story.

Furthermore, if there was no production capacity, that left only the possibility of leftover, degraded stocks and equipment. Not exactly the kind of thing that could be used to kill lots of Americans. Of course, Saddam Hussein could have sent some schulb over to blow himself up in a shopping mall, but he didn't, so that's hardly reason enough for war.

There was no real threat. The rest of the world knew this. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, here in Canada, actually came out and said that the Bush administration had shown him "no proof" of Iraqi WMD -- prompting his famous "a proof is a proof" line. Did you hear about that in the States? How much coverage did it get? The head of government of a significant ally, with access to your intelligence, said the U.S. had no proof. Barely a ripple.

(Recently Canadian intel experts have come forward saying that they repeatedly asked the U.S. for intelligence, but American agencies never produced anything they considered credible.)

Attacking another country absent any substantive threat defeats the whole point of the incentive system. By defining "behaving yourself" as not waging war against others (which could be interpreted to include genocide against a definable group) the West gains leverage it couldn't otherwise have. If the West threatens war for lesser offenses, more countries than we are able handle will keep committing such offenses and the system will break down.

The threat of force must be predictable for force to be an effective deterrent. If countries think they'll be invade even if they don't pose a real, significant threat then we'll have chaos.

"If they depend on the U.S., how will withholding aid help them? If anything, it'll compel more people to hate the U.S. and commit more acts of terrorism."

It's a delicate balance, but I say strave the regime, help the people. This could be done by threatening the removal of aid to governments unless they begin to reform, or by cutting aid to governments and stipulating that if they want our money they'll have to let us deliver it directly to the people to improve our standing with common Arab men and women.

There will be some level of concessions Arab states are not willing to make even if we make it clear that we're serious. But once some reforms are in place there will be no going back, because the Arab people wouldn't allow their governments to take away their new rights. At that point we can begin demanding more reforms, and so on and so on.

Another interesting idea is the Responsibility to Protect project being spearheaded by the Canadian government. It seeks to establish a new international consensus on the minimum standard for "good behavior". It works much like the framework I've discussed above, but would layout specific, predictable criteria for international military intervention; new criteria, in addition to one country launching an unprovoked war against another, such as human rights violations and massacre.

Had the Bush administration sought to do this and then apply such criteria to Iraq, I'd have been supportive. But many in the administration have publicly rejected the need for any international consensus and insisted that the United States should proactively dismiss the value of multilateralism in favour of a new world order under which the U.S. -- joined by those who agree with it -- is able to dictate terms to the rest of world. Scary.