Libertarians Offer An Iraq Exit Strategy

[David S]

Well lets see. What were our reasons for going there?
1)"Saddam must disarm" Well it seems he was disarmed.
2)"Saddam was working on weapons of mass destruction." None were found.
3)"Saddam was an evil, evil man".  No argument there but there are plenty of evil rulers around the world and besides he's out of the picture now.
4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

I was more or less in agreement with the LP plan up to the point about providing $150 billion in aid. I can't believe any Libertarian would propose that!

Seems like most of you don't like the LP exit plan because it entails leaving. Somehow I always thought that's what exit meant.

[David S]

4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

This is simply not true.  I quote to you from the President Bush's speech on , the night we began the attack on Iraq:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Democracy in Iraq was always a central goal of the invasion, and to say otherwise is to mistate the facts.

I don't recall Bush saying that but if you say so I'll believe you, but the point remains that the Iraqi's didn't ask for this. Are they really better off now than before? The 20,000 or so who were killed by our bombs probably aren't better off. How many others were maimed or disfigured? Are they better off? How about those who had their homes destroyed? Are they better off? How about the people who live in constant fear of bombings  in a country which is constantly subject to attacks? Are they better off?

Yeah they show some Iraqi's on TV who say they appreciate our help. But how many other Iraqi's are running down the street with an AK47 yelling "death to the infidels"?  Those guys don't usually get interviewed on Fox news.

[David S]

4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

This is simply not true.  I quote to you from the President Bush's speech on , the night we began the attack on Iraq:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Democracy in Iraq was always a central goal of the invasion, and to say otherwise is to mistate the facts.

I don't recall Bush saying that but if you say so I'll believe you, but the point remains that the Iraqi's didn't ask for this. Are they really better off now than before? The 20,000 or so who were killed by our bombs probably aren't better off. How many others were maimed or disfigured? Are they better off? How about those who had their homes destroyed? Are they better off? How about the people who live in constant fear of bombings  in a country which is constantly subject to attacks? Are they better off?

Yeah they show some Iraqi's on TV who say they appreciate our help. But how many other Iraqi's are running down the street with an AK47 yelling "death to the infidels"?  Those guys don't usually get interviewed on Fox news.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis voted in the election, thus ratifying popular support for our objective.  I'd be willing to estimate that the safety of the average Iraqi is greater today than during the days of midnight raids and torture rooms, and that current US polict towards Iraq is safer for civilians than the 12 years of sanctions.

As for your suggestion that Iraq didn't ask for it, this is more than a little silly.  When you Presidential ballot looks like this:

[ ] Vote for Saddam
[ ] Death of my family

You don't often have your voice heard to begin with.

The founders of our own nation faced a similar situation; support the declaration of independence and face death. The king wasn't at all fond of the colonists who wanted freedom. Yes we got help from the French and I'm sure the founders were thankful for it. But it was our war. An American (well future American anyway) wrote the declaration of independence and other Americans signed it. It would have been a different story if Napoleon wrote it. How would the founders have reacted if the French just came here and told us they were going to liberate us with or without our consent, and then set up a government for us modeled after their own?

[David S]

The founders of our own nation faced a similar situation; support the declaration of independence and face death. The king wasn't at all fond of the colonists who wanted freedom. Yes we got help from the French and I'm sure the founders were thankful for it. But it was our war. An American (well future American anyway) wrote the declaration of independence and other Americans signed it. It would have been a different story if Napoleon wrote it. How would the founders have reacted if the French just came here and told us they were going to liberate us with or without our consent, and then set up a government for us modeled after their own?

The big difference that jumps out at me on this is that our "king" was weeks away from us, and months away from actually piecing together a military force to come get us.  In the case in Iraq, Saddam and his goons were just hours away, and would snuff out a revolt in a heart beat.  This is why the Kurds lost so many people when Saddam gased them.  Fortunately, following the first part of the Gulf War, the Kurdish regions were under US protection (no-fly zone), allowing them to develop an autonomous region and prosper.

The current crop of rebels are willing to fight a much more powerful adversary, us. Was there no one there before brave enough to stand up to Saddam? or was there no one who had an interest in doing so?

BTW the new government controls the military and the police and allegedly has the popular support of the people, so why can't they take care of their own damn country? Who is there who has sufficient power to overthrow them?