No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

The Reasons for the Iraq War

Thomas Friedman presents an excellent essay on why the war on Iraq was right.

He also states: But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

Maureen Dowd makes the point most of us should be focusing on: For the first time in history, America is searching for the reason we went to war after the war is over. [My underlining.]

Friedman suggests that a lot of what has happened in the middle east has resulted from the changed perspective many have after we conquered Iraq. Dowd, however, points out that if we attacked Iraq in order to stabilize the middle east, then the results are certainly quite mixed.

In a Vanity Fair interview, Paul Wolfowitz said another "almost unnoticed but huge" reason for war was to promote Middle East peace by allowing the U.S. to take its troops out of Saudi Arabia — Osama's bête noir. But it was after the U.S. announced it would pull its troops from Saudi Arabia that a resurgent Qaeda struck a Western compound, killing eight Americans.

And it was after the U.S. tried to intimidate other foes by stomping on Saddam that Iran and North Korea ratcheted up their nukes. Iran and North Korea actually do have scary nuclear programs, but if we express our alarm to the world now, will we be accused of crying Wolfowitz?

A new Pew survey of 21 nations shows a deepening skepticism toward the U.S. "The war had widened the rift between Americans and Western Europeans, further inflamed the Muslim world, softened support for the war on terrorism, and significantly weakened global public support for the pillars of the post-World War II era — the U.N. and the North Atlantic alliance," said Pew's director, Andrew Kohut.

Brits may be more upset with Mr. Blair than Americans are with Mr. Bush because they have the quaint idea that even if you think war was a good idea, you should level with the public about your objectives.

I didn't think we were being told the real reasons for the war in advance, and I was right. I didn't think that Saddam and Iraq posed an immediate danger to the US, or even a significant danger in the future. So far the lack of the discovery of nukes proves me right on that. [The issue of ~WMD's~ is a bait and switch technique. Neither chemical nor biological weapons are major threats to the US. The only significant issue for our security is and was nukes - as the North Koreans well know.] Well, we are now in control of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I very much agree with Friedman that the world future and America's security all depend on our building a different Iraq.

Nothing in the rhetoric coming out of the Pentagon (which apparently is currently setting our foreign policy) or the White House gives me any comfort that they plan to spend the time, dollars and lives which will be required to permit the necessary changes in Iraq. Instead I expect them to follow the pattern they have shown in Afghanistan. The minute it is out of the news, they will ignore it.
posted by Richard at 8:13 AM