A great article

Earlier today, NZ Bear took a bit of a snarky shot at a "Cost of the War in Iraq" counter that my League of Liberals cohort, Rick's American Cafe, (like many other sites) has posted on his blog. Rather than just lashing bac, Rick, instead, wrote an incredibly thoughtful - and thought provoking - piece on what he feels about the situation in Iraq and why. In ways far more eloquent than I can usually muster when the topic has me a bit hot under the collar, Rick lays out his reasoning, the questions he has, and why he thinks it will take a team other than the Bush administration to do the job right. Below is an excerpt from his article, but please, take the time to read it. I didn't find much in there that doesn't express exactly how I feel - and even that comes pretty close. Since he put it better than I ever could, I'll let him do the talking on this one.

Toppling Saddam was a good thing, but it will take unknowable resources (political, financial, temporal, physical . . .) to make sure that the power vacuum in that country is filled with a representative government that can effectively and humanely govern. This took years to accomplish in Panama, which is NOTHING like Iraq (for starters, Panama had a more or less stable infrastructure and a stable economy pegged to the Dollar, not to mention the presence of U.S. Southern Command) and there wasn't nearly the resentment toward the U.S. that we find in Iraq. All this by way of saying that I think we bit off far more than we could chew, and we did it at a time when we should have been focusing on national security, specifically the holes in our visa and intelligence systems.

A word on perspective: Terrorism is not nearly as big a threat to the lives of U.S. citizens as automobile accidents, pollution, or suicide. I believe our outrage and resources would be better devoted to tackling these problems. If you accept that counter-terrorism should be our number one priority, Saddam was less of a threat to the U.S. than Osama, and less of a threat than homicidal traitors like Timothy McVeigh, and less of a threat than Pakistan or North Korea. The risk of Saddam getting WMDs and passing them on to terrorists who would use them against US citizens was less than that of terrorists getting their hands on weapons-grade uranium from former Soviet republics. So I don’t think it was worth it there. And if you believe that our first priority should be liberating oppressed people, well, I’d like to agree with you but I can’t.

But what is done is done. We have just put our foot through a very expensive door that opens up on a very, very long hallway, and I think the chances of true success are slim. We're in, though, and probably have no better choice than to keep moving forward -- but let's do it with serious reflection and concern for the short and long-term effects. The short-term effects of the tax cut and the war may have been to topple a despicable regime and boost a staggering economy -- but what will the long-term effects be? Will they be increased hatred of (and therefore terrorism against) the US? Years of guerrilla warfare and instability in Iraq? A devastating national debt? A draft? Inadequate military resources for our own defense? Or will it be increased stability in a notoriously unstable region? The foundation for a new world order in which American intervention is welcomed by suffering people?

I believe that the answers are still being written, and much depends on the actions of our government in the coming months and years. What troubles me – and the reason that I am no supporter of the current administration – is that I have little confidence that the team in charge will move forward with the sort of perspective and thoughtfulness that I would hope for.