Saturday, November 24, 2012

Another Skirmish on the War

According to conservative author, David Horowitz, the Bush administration offered Saddam Hussein an 11th hour ultimatum; step down and let one of the other Ba'athists take over, or face war and be forced out. Assuming that this is true (and I'm suspecting that it's at least partially true), yes, the plot most assuredly thickens..................................................................................a) On the one hand, it puts more of an onus on the critics of Bush to maybe put a little bit more of their bile onto Hussein and a little bit less of it onto the President (the fact that Hussein could have prevented the war simply by stepping down) but b) it also challenges the supporters of Mr. Bush in that it calls into question the manner in which the Texan ultimately handled the conflict; the fact that he disbanded the army, purged the Ba'athists, etc.....................................................................................The way that I decipher it here, Saddam Hussein was virulent a man who engaged in some of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century, and one whose ouster was fully justified (yes, I did in fact oppose the war at the time and still think that it was probably a mistake). But President Bush, in my viewpoint, went way, WAY, beyond what was wise and necessary. The fact of the matter is that Iraq was never tangible country and had only been held together by brute force. It's muti-ethnic makeup anyone should have been able to foretell was not amenable to nation-building. AND the existence of strong Sunni presence in that region was in and of itself a GOOD thing....Not that that's what this Horowitz had in mind, mind you.....

8 comments:

Rusty Shackelford said...



Who really gives a shit if it was Sunni's or Booni's or Goonie's or Bevis & Butthead? Saddam was killing thousands and he was stupid enough to talk about killing W's father and was dumb enough to say he had WMD's....this idiot needed to be dispatched on general principals.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I've come around to that to a degree. I just wish that we had been more surgical about it and had avoided a lengthy occupation and counter-insurgency. Colin Powell would have definitely handled it a lot differently, in my opinion.

Rusty Shackelford said...



Powell had his chance the first time around and backed off at the end.Powell is way over rated.

BB-Idaho said...

If we dispatched every tinhorn evil
dictator, we'd need to enlarge Arlington National to the size of
Rhode Island.

dmarks said...

Will said: " I just wish that we had been more surgical about it and had avoided a lengthy occupation and counter-insurgency"

The worse thing here by far is that Rummie was no MacArthur. Imagine an occupation of Iraq like MacArthur had done it.

Rusty: Dead on Powell. Not very competent, and racist too.

BB: Or a lot smaller. Dispatching the tinhorns instead of coddling them would be a major disincentive.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Russ, it wasn't just Powell who backed off. Then sane man, Dick Cheney, and the first President Bush saw the folly of such an endeavor, too.

BB-Idaho said...

There is a downside
to combat as a
convenient tool of amateur arm-chair strategists.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Just to be even-handed here, it might have helped if people like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden (not to mention the entirety of the Republicans) had taken the time to read the NIE or at the very least the damned summary PRIOR to voting on it.