My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« Christopher Hitchens: ‘Solidarity with Denmark! Death to fascism!’ | Main | Sen. Carl Levin: Iraq’s leaders are too slow forming unity government »

February 26, 2006



This was also brought up at Dean's World where I made a comment.


Dean's World look pretty good. Captain's Quarters was covering this topic, too.

Frank Warner

All of this is more evidence that liberation is liberal!

jj mollo

I love Buckley, but he's wrong. Bush didn't do it for the short-term national security issues. The fact is that Iraq, and Iran too for that matter, are both capable of becoming economic powerhouses. This is not really the third world. They are hampered by corruption and authoritarian mentalities more than anything. Look at what the Kurds have done. Michael Totten has some good stuff on that. Kurdistan is landlocked! They have no undisputed oil fields. They are surrounded by enemies, but they have some sort of cultural advantage over the rest of Iraq. They are Sunnis, but they seem to believe in religious tolerance and support the liberation of women. Part of their present advantage is definitely security. The hope is that the rest of Iraq will blossom and coelesce when security improves and when constitutional protections are enforced by Iraqis. The alternative is war and tyranny without end. Sooner or later that would hurt us, not to mention the region. Saddam had to be removed! We couldn't possibly have allowed that situation to continue, and we certainly couldn't leave until his sons were rendered irrelevant. The possibility of a Baath revival couldn't be endured either. If we just try to prevent bad equilibria, then some sort of self-correcting system might crystallize. What would we have been willing to pay to make that happen in Germany? Iraq will become a jewel of comparable merit.

The comments to this entry are closed.