The View From 1776
Iraq: Liberals Can’t Look Reality in the Face
An assessment made in November, 2005, limned the underlying reasons why our failure to neutralize Saddam Hussein and foreclose his already rooted conjunction with Osama BinLadin would have been treasonous.
This assessment is repeated and broadened in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
These two pieces illuminate the near-sighted self-interest motivating liberal-progressive-socialist politicians. To win a domestic election at the cost of disrupting the entire free world is far worse than poor judgment.
- He misses the biggest point about Middle East oil. It isn't nearly as important how much oil we get from them as what that oil is sold in, dollars.
When the dollar was collapsing, we agreed in 1971 to protect OPEC nations if they would sell oil in dollars. That move saved the dollar and possibly the U.S. from a very bad situation. The demand for dollars by the world is tied to oil sales. They trade with us or in ways to get dollars to buy oil with and that demand keeps the dollar's value up.
The current concern with Iran is more about the fact they, like Saddam did, stopped selling oil in dollars and our dollar's demand has dropped and the value of the dollar is also dropping. Venezuela is moving away from the dollar. Other OPEC nations are removing their "peg" to the dollar.
Now while terrorism is real and is coming from the Middle East, we need to have the full picture. Saddam was violating the cease fire, he was still researching "Plasma Enrichment," and he was meeting with al-Qeada leaders. He had three terrorist training camps. He was funding suicide bomber families to encourage more suicide bombings.
My main disagreement with the war in Iraq was we failed to have Congress meet their full responsibility in that they should have declared war and set goals that we clear to all. The other thing was it was "sold" to the U.N. and the American people on the wrong grounds even though the real issues were there to be used. In other words, going to war was marketed wrong, the goals marketed wrong, the strategies marketed wrong, the objectives marketed wrong, etc. We allowed the more divisive member of Congress to totally undermine the military and actually give "aid and comfort" to the enemy in their nightly talk that could have been summed up as,
"Bomb these vehicles they have less armor." or These troops are under manned" or "these have poor morale or leadership," or "if you get more funding or manpower you can beat the U.S., we can't win."
That was treasonable but, since we weren't "at declared war," it was easier to get away with. That is not to say it was wise to go to war against Iraq but, it was justified. It may have not been wise if for no other reason than it gave the opponents of this administration more fuel for their ability to convince voters we were wrong in our foreign policies. Yet, most of the policies for the Middle East came during the 40 years democrats were in control of Congress. So however, much you want to blame the GOP, the Democrats need to share in any criticism that led to 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq and now possibly Iran.
We are paying now for decades of policies tied to oil and Middle East politics that we used for many reasons including the undermining of Russia. George Washington that warned of this outcome from foreign entanglements must be turning in his grave to see this happening now after being so clear in his warning.Posted by JanPBurr on 12/28 at 05:13 PM