Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:07 am
the iraq (and afghanistan!) and libya regime change objectives are far more similar than you realize, I think
We invaded Iraq because the United States wanted to give middle eastern states reason to fear us, and deposing saddam hussein was the easiest way to send that message. We intervened in Libya and not all those other places because the United States wanted to send the message that it supported democratic revolutions, and given our tight bonds with monarchies like bahrain and qatar, and the "strategic importance" of yemen in the "war on terror," Libya was the easiest place to intervene to send that message. Both of these actions also included sensationalist pretext - Iraq had the threat of WMDs, Libya was sold on the pretense of "If we don't intervene Benghazi is going to be razed and all these innocent people are going to die!"
On top of that, by the standards we've set for the success of intervention in Libya, the invasion of Iraq was a colossal success within a week of the fall of Baghdad. The immediate disaster was averted, and the capacity of their rulers to perform mischief outside of their countries was destroyed, even if they weren't captured or dead, and we stood up for the ideals we wanted to stand up for! Who cares that we've spent an enormous amount of money on our large-scale construction and deployment operations in Iraq, and who cares that we've progressed from "deposing a hostile regime" to "nation-building"? And, if you think Libya will be neatly bundled up and resolved anytime soon, you're foolish - it'll probably be completely out of the media by the end of the year, sure, but the country will be far from an idyllic bastion of democracy, and who's to say the new ruling body, the NTC, will be kind and benevolent leaders? Nouri al-Maliki is certainly a corrupt mother$#@!er, and Hamid Karzai isn't any better!
here's the bottom line, though: our concerns with appearance - looking tough, altruistic, responsible, or credible - have led us to wage war in places where we have very little, if anything, immediately at stake, and fighting wars for narrative or for the sake of image is foolish. and there's the other problem with all of this: soldiers and bombs cannot build a successful, strong government
We invaded Iraq because the United States wanted to give middle eastern states reason to fear us, and deposing saddam hussein was the easiest way to send that message. We intervened in Libya and not all those other places because the United States wanted to send the message that it supported democratic revolutions, and given our tight bonds with monarchies like bahrain and qatar, and the "strategic importance" of yemen in the "war on terror," Libya was the easiest place to intervene to send that message. Both of these actions also included sensationalist pretext - Iraq had the threat of WMDs, Libya was sold on the pretense of "If we don't intervene Benghazi is going to be razed and all these innocent people are going to die!"
On top of that, by the standards we've set for the success of intervention in Libya, the invasion of Iraq was a colossal success within a week of the fall of Baghdad. The immediate disaster was averted, and the capacity of their rulers to perform mischief outside of their countries was destroyed, even if they weren't captured or dead, and we stood up for the ideals we wanted to stand up for! Who cares that we've spent an enormous amount of money on our large-scale construction and deployment operations in Iraq, and who cares that we've progressed from "deposing a hostile regime" to "nation-building"? And, if you think Libya will be neatly bundled up and resolved anytime soon, you're foolish - it'll probably be completely out of the media by the end of the year, sure, but the country will be far from an idyllic bastion of democracy, and who's to say the new ruling body, the NTC, will be kind and benevolent leaders? Nouri al-Maliki is certainly a corrupt mother$#@!er, and Hamid Karzai isn't any better!
here's the bottom line, though: our concerns with appearance - looking tough, altruistic, responsible, or credible - have led us to wage war in places where we have very little, if anything, immediately at stake, and fighting wars for narrative or for the sake of image is foolish. and there's the other problem with all of this: soldiers and bombs cannot build a successful, strong government
