Sunday, March 3, 2013

10 Years On, Progressives Still Oppose Regime Change in Iraq

From Nick Cohen, at the Observer UK, "Ten years on, the case for invading Iraq is still valid: A decade after Saddam was overthrown, why are some progressives still loath to celebrate his demise?":
Every few months a member of the audience at a meeting I am addressing asks whether I regret supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The look in their eyes is both imploring and accusatory – "surely you must agree with me now", it seems to say. I reply that I regret much: the disbanding of the Iraqi army; a de-Ba'athification programme that became a sectarian purge of Iraq's Sunnis; the torture of Abu Ghraib; and a failure to impose security that allowed murderous sectarian gangs to kill tens of thousands.

For all that, I say, I would not restore the Ba'ath if I had the power to rewind history. To do so would be to betray people who wanted something better after 35 years of tyranny. If my interrogators' protesting cries allow it, I then talk about Saddam's terror state and the Ba'ath's slaughter of the "impure" Kurdish minority, accomplished in true Hitlerian fashion with poison gas.

My questioners invariably look bewildered. The notion that, even if they opposed military intervention, they had obligations to support those who suffered under a regime which can be fairly described as national socialist had never occurred to them. No one can say that time's passing has lessened their confusion.

It's 10 years since the overthrow of Saddam and 25 since he ordered the Kurdish genocide. I can guarantee that you will not hear much about Saddam's atrocities in the coming weeks. As Bayan Rahman, the Kurdish ambassador to London, said to me: "Everyone wants to remember Fallujah and no one wants to remember Halabja." Nor, I think, will you hear about the least explored legacy of the war, which continues to exert a malign influence on "liberal" foreign policy.
Continue reading.

Well, ten years later and just about everyone would be looking at regime change a bit differently. A lot went wrong with that war. But as always, it's the left's hypocrisy that's astonishing. President Obama has been even more aggressive in national security --- even way more repressive in civil liberties --- than the Bush administration, but there's none of the Bush-Hitler demonization. Indeed, the left is now the palace guard insulating this clusterf-k administration from any criticism whatsoever. It's not just shameful, it's devastating to democratic government.