American conquest
Posted by aogSunday, 26 January 2003 at 09:09 TrackBack Ping URL
Oliver Willis is ranging fire on the USS Clueless about the latter's predictions for a war with Iraq. Willis claims that
An American "conquest" (as Steven [Den Beste] calls it) debases the very values on which this country stands for, and if executed - stains us all in its power lust.
But then aren't we already stained from our conquest of Germany and Japan 50 years ago? To say that conquest in and of itself is morally staining is to be morally obtuse, to claim that there are no sins of omission. Willis also views the US as the antagonist in this relationship. Apparently Saddam's attacks on Iran and Kuwait or his flagrant violations of treaties and agreements and UN Security Council resolutions don't count as "antagonism". Willis also drags out the "US armed Iraq" argument as a point against intervention now. But as many others have said, if it was really our fault (and not the Axis Of Weasel's) don't we owe it to the Iraqi people to do what we can to clean up our mess? I would think that one key American value is "you shoot your own dog".
Comments — Formatting by Textile
Oliver Sunday, 26 January 2003 at 10:22

Germany and Japan were aggresor states focused on conquest and expansion on an unprecedented scale. You will also note that after WW2 we rebuilt these countries into strong democracies, something that has never existed in the middle east.

And whatever happened to Saudi support for terror? No conservative can answer this question to date.

Thomas Monday, 27 January 2003 at 09:30

Oliver,

You seem to imply that Iraq is a state that is not ‘focused on conquest and expansion on an unprecedented scale’. Have you paid attention to the last 30 years of Iraqi history? It seems Saddam’s sole ambition has been to build a vast Arab/ Muslim empire along the lines of the 14th century that will control a majority of the worlds critical supplies of oil. Just because he has been OVER ambitious and fairly ineffective (Iran) or effectively countered (Kuwait) and has not yet succeeded, should he be allowed to continue trying? Do you really believe that the US will not follow the example that we set with Germany and Japan? I have yet to see any policy statements that President Bush plans to move into Saddam’s old palaces or will be awarding them to his top contributors or auctioning them off for future political favors. It seems to me that there is a time and place for such ‘POST war discussions’, and now is not the time.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 27 January 2003 at 10:55

Mr. Willis;

I actually share your concerns about our post war activities in Iraq and the Saudi entity. The latter is clearly the center pole of the Calipharian tent and at some not too distant point either they’ll have to pull it down or we’ll have to take it down for them. However, Iraq is another big pole and much easier for us to take out now. It’s called “flanking” and is a very standard tactic when assualting a strong point like the Saudi entity.

As for building a post-war democracy in Iraq, I will not minimize the difficult, expense and pain that that effort is likely to cost. But I don’t see what other realistic alternative we have. This effort is actually more important than the invasion in terms of winning the war against the Calipharians and, like you, I am concerned about the precedents being set in Afghanistan.

One of the best editorials from the left against the “anti-war” activists is that those efforts would be far better spent forcing President Bush to guarantee a reconstruction of Iraq as we did for Japan and Germany. That would be better for everyone except the vermin trying to kill us.

End of Discussion