Saddam's Gone – Why Aren't We?

[Qanisqineq]

Saddam's Gone – Why Aren't We?
by Mark Anderson
January 11, 2005
http://antiwar.com/orig/anderson.php?articleid=4302

When Saddam was first captured, the accolades bestowed upon Mr. Bush were empirical proof enough for me that there would be a permanent presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. The successful snatching of Saddam was enough to validate the entire unconstitutional war in the minds of many Americans. Critics of the war were told to shut up.

But wasn't apprehending Saddam supposedly what the war – and the debate over entering the war – was all about in the first place? So the Bush administration accomplished what it said it wanted to accomplish. It seems to me that the logical response to the capture of Saddam would have been a speedy and hasty withdrawal. Objective accomplished.

Instead, the capture of Saddam was used to score points for a continued occupation of Iraq: political grandstanding at its worst. Every day of U.S. occupation after Saddam's capture is evidence that the war has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam, and everything to do with nation-building.

The Saddam factor has morphed into whatever suits neocon propaganda. The capture of Saddam was enough for neocons to deify Mr. Bush. But like Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's 1984, Saddam never really goes away. Only Saddam "sympathizers" and "loyalists" wish for the war in Iraq to end, according to the neocons.

<more>

[NVMojo]

1. good point and to the point! Why are we still there? Don't tell me it's

because we've fecked it all up and have to stay there to fix things. We have created a manmade disaster zone over there.

[Gnaeus]

2. If we don't stay

things will turn into chaos and be worse for all concerned, the least we can do for the Iraqis is help them get a decent goverment. Ours might not be the best example now though.

[Mari333]

3. You would feel differently if your kid was over there. n/t

[Qanisqineq]

5. or if your husband had been over there

and all the Iraqis said was they wanted us out.

[cmutt]

4. Answer: OIL

(O)peration
(I)raqi
(L)iberation

We certainly aren't making any effort to free other countries around the globe from opressive dictators. Sadaam was certainly an evil man (that we propped up and sold weapons to; another great Reagan legacy), but it all comes back to: why them/him and why now? This administration WENT OUT OF IT'S WAY to make a case for war against Iraq. The country is largely a desert. We've already conquered the place. Every day we are there, the situation deteriorates and we are associated with it's decline and with it's occupation (as opposed to liberation). Why the reluctance to the UN? It's simple: Iraq has oil.

The idea that democracy will flourish in the region with Iraq as the seed is lunacy. After the destruction and the torture, you really think ANY sane person within a 5 country radius will even consider what we are pushing? Far from it: our actions have hurt any chance at democracy. We've done nothing but validate the basic concept of "US = evil". Bush's actions have bred a new generation of anti-Americanism that will prove fertile soil upon which terrorism can grow. American will undoubtably be more unsafe for future generations.