Still Pro-War

I am still pro-war in Iraq. This is why:

We know that our policy of appeasement with bad and oppressive Arab governments for oil has been disastrous. We need to find a way to change those governments without pushing them into radical theocracy. Providing an example of successful democracy is necessary to prevent neighboring Muslim states from choosing Iran or Taliban-like governments in lieu of their monarchies.

Iraq was in a special status as a nation that the other "axis of evil" countries are not in. Iraq has invaded two neighbors, and has used WMD's. We believed that they still had them, and Iraq was required to provide proof that they had destroyed them. Iraq signed an agreement to end the previous gulf war that required that compliance. Iraq failed to comply. Even so, the other two parts of the axis are not forgotten. North Korea has other states around it that are powerful enough to counter potential aggression, and is not an Islamic state that sponsors the specific terrorism that we are encountering now. Additionally, North Korea is not sitting on Nexus of the life blood of the entire world economy. Finally, Iran is now bordered by two states occupied by the US and is contained in a way that it was not in 2002 (and it has a strong democratic movement on its own that intervention would cripple, not help).

I think it is clear that the 12 years of sanctions were not working to enforce the cease fire agreement. The sanctions were weakening without Iraqi compliance, and I think it is likely that the effect of sanctions over 12 years are qualitatively and quantitatively worse for the innocent Iraqi citizens than the war has been. Combatants have to have the right to enforce cease fire agreements, or the victor will not accept anything short of unconditional surrender. If even the United States cannot rely and enforce such agreements, why would some third-world country agree to one? Even simply as a matter of enforcing this agreement, I think we were justified in the attack.

I believe that even if it fails, the attempt to start a democracy in Iraq was the right move. True democracies do not invade other democracies (at least, I can't think of an example). I believe that it is possible that with democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we could in the next decade possibly have a line of countries with half of the Islamic world in representative democracies. From Turkey, Iraq, Iran (which has the infrastructure for democracy now, just has to get rid of the ruling mullahs, and is possible), Afghanistan, Pakistan (which has had democracy, and can again), 200 million Muslims in India, and Indonesia. I think that would put incredible pressure on the rest of the Islamic world to start to change from their own populations, and that would be a good thing.

I think Iraq has an educated populous that is relatively industrious, and has a history of secular government and relatively good women's rights. It is closer to Turkey in temperament and history than Saudi Arabia. As a place to start seeding democracy in the middle east, Iraq is a good place to start.

In my mind, Bush has swung hard for the fence for a long term solution to middle east violence and oppression. I think it is going to work, but we won't know if it is truly successful for another ten years, or longer. Our own experiment in democracy fluttered along for 13 years before we even got our Constitution, and was probably not truly secured until after the Civil War. Expecting immediate results is unreasonable.

If ten years from now we all look back and say we failed, I will still support the attempt. There is no guarantee of success in world affairs, but continuing failed policies is a guaranteed failure.