For all you hawks out there

September 10th, 2002 § Two comments

More reasons not to invade Iraq, as if there weren’t enough already:

  • After establishing a significant presence in Pakistan, Al Qaeda has begun to return to Afghanistan as well. Even with support from the American military, the current Afghan government “has been unable to gain effective control of the Afghan countryside.”
  • President Bush has told world leaders that it isn’t the United States’ job to replace Saddam Hussein, apparently preferring to believe that any other leader would be better than Hussein. Um, would anyone care to bet on that?

The Nation has a list of nine critical questions that the United States should answer before invading Iraq. Here’s number eight: “Even if we are successful in toppling Saddam, who will govern Iraq afterward? Will we leave the country in chaos (as we have done in Afghanistan)? Or will we try to impose a government in the face of the inevitable Iraqi hostility if US forces destroy what remains of Iraq’s infrastructure and kill many of its civilians?” Sounds like Bush has decided on the first option.

Two comments

  • Erynn says:

    What are you so worried about anyway? Dubya clearly stated during the leadership debates that he “was not interested in nation building.” He overused the term “nation building” to an extent unseen in recent politics. I’m blithely certain that he is shocked that he fell off the wagon so quickly in Afghanistan, and that now he’ll be working overtime to exhibit the stately restraint that we all expect from him.
    No wait, I mean he’s going to bomb Iraq regardless of what anyone tells him. Yeah, that sounds more in sync with reality.

  • Electrin says:

    Saddam Hussein is a known threat. I’d settle for that over an unknown anyday.

What’s this?

You are currently reading For all you hawks out there at pinchy dot org.

meta