"Are you comfortable with reason(s) we were given to invade Iraq?"
Well, it's a tricky question.
There were reasons for invading Iraq, some of which were enunciated by the Bush admin. It was a "daring" move, it was calculated to upset the status quo in the middle east, and it possibly will do that. I say "possibly" because it isn't at all clear to me that we will actually succeed in what we are trying to do, looking at the matter from a longer term perspective, i.e., spread "democracy" and economic progress through market driven economies in the mideast. Whatever else is spouted about the war on terror and US security issues, these are, if that war is properly fought, relatively short term issues. The longer term issues--far more important and more difficult--have to do with how to bring the middle eastern/Arab nations into the modern world.
However, to say the "there were reasons" for this isn't to say that the invasion was done in the right way at the right time with the right people, if we were really first and foremost concerned with this very legitimate long term goal. The invasion was timed for the US elections--pure and simple. One of the few people in a position of power to say this outright was Robert Byrd--everyone else was cowed by the speed of events, by the Republicans' brilliant manipulation of the press and the American people, by the fear of losing the center in the election. Byrd has the advantage of having a safe seat in WV, and not really caring if loses the next election or not even if the Republicans decide he may be vulnerable then. He has been there and done that, he has seen all the liars on the hill and in the WH, he has his own sins to atone for and which he has apologized for, he is 83 or 84 now, he has earned the luxury of speaking the truth no matter what.
If this war had been done "properly" there would not have been marches of millions of people all over the world in opposition to it. Most of the "coalition" don't even have the support of their people for this action. It was not coordinated either with the UN or with countries that should have been our allies, and would have been our allies if the Bush admin had any talent or taste at all for diplomacy, both of the back room and the more public variety, if they weren't dominated in the last analysis by the drive to win the '02 election and win their own reelection in '04, which as far as I can see trumps everything else for them. All the nonsense about France and Russia's opposition to this war having to do with oil is absurd. So is the all the nonsense about the UN. These things strike a chord with American voters, the Republicans fan them, they use anything they can to get votes, including issues like the Confederate Flag issue which should tell you how far they are willing to go even as they protest that they aren't racist (and I actually believe that most of the leadership isn't "racist" as such, in the old fashioned way of being vicious racist--but they aren't above appealing to racist sentiments and voters in order to win southern states, a strategy they have used quite effectively in the past 20 years). Of course there are absurdities about the UN, it is a fledgling organization, it is composed of a multitude of conflicting interests and cultures, there must be absurdities intrinsic to it. But everyone just has to deal with it with humor and looking to the longer term. In the end, there must be some such organization, in the end our weapons make wars not only unpalatable as they have always been, but potentially devastating and we must attempt to build over a period of generations multilateral institutions, political and cultural connections and diplomatic conventions that can smooth over these vast differences and find ways of resolving conflicts without resorting to war. The Bush admin was far too impatient for this because of their overriding electoral concerns, because of their nationalist arrogance, and because of this country's military dominance over every other country which makes the temptation to use that dominance almost impossible to resist. It leads, though, to an overestimation of what military might can do--if you are not willing to use scorched earth tactics--which so far fortunately we are not willing to do--then military might can only accomplish limited ends. At the end of the day, our invasion will be judged by what Iraq and the middle east looks like in 20 years, and, perhaps, by how we use our military might over the next few decades.
Sorry for rambling, had to write this in haste. Must go now.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
