All through the 1990s the left was advocating intervention in places like Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia and Rwanda for humanitarian reasons and nation building.
We are finally engaged in nation building and humanitarian efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our immediate withdrawal would probably lead to massive civilian casualties and a bloody sectarian war yet that is exactly what liberals are arguing for. So while they were arguing for intervention, when we had nothing to gain, a decade ago, today, they arguing against intervention when there is much to gain in terms of oil and security.
Its puzzling.
They also advocated going after Osama, something the right didn't think was necessary at the time.
We did go to Somalia and our retreat was just another example the bin Laden's of the world cited as proof of America's weakness, thus strengthening THEIR desire to attack us.
In no way should we have gotten involved in Rwanda.
Claiming WMD in Iraq as a premise for invasion is not a humanitarian venture. Neither is destroying the Taliban & terror cells in Afghanistan.
Yes our exit from Iraq would cause civil war...our presence, or shall I say the absence of Saddam, already has. Bush Sr. and Colin Powell were right on the money years before. There is no probability to it, it is already a definite, although we bounce around the issue equivocally in a manner similar to the administrations of the 90's dancing around the term "genocide" in the case of Rwanda.
I don't think there is a strong correlation between Iraq / Afghanistan and Rwanda / Haiti / Somalia if there even is any at all. You don't have to be a Republican or a Democrat to agree to that. Given the context, one could argue simultaneously for intervention in Rwanda and none in Iraq, or vice-versa, regardless of partisanship. It's just, now that we've created this quagmire we need a legitimate premise and all fingers point to humanitarianism for a lack of any other option. Now it is our obligation regardless of what future course of action those in Washington finally decide on.
As far as being against intervention in Iraq, that's an old topic. In case you haven't noticed we're already there. Beyond that, "pulling out" isn't a mainstream solution as far as the left is concerned...although it does get mainstream media attention b/c Americans like things simple i.e. one or the other. Sure, there is a desire for less troops present (& troops coming home), no more troop surges, or lighter occupation of the interior, but most agree our presence is and will be mandatory for quite some time. Border security is a main issue. Just look at the north and their issue with Turkey.
Yes, there is oil to gain, we've already secured that. Read the Iraqi constitution and deals brokered between the "Iraqi" government and ours. Look at the rebuilding costs and potential methods of "payment." Its all there.
As far as security, most would argue against our presence in either theater solving the issue of American's security. I'd personally bank on the theory that it has done exactly the opposite. Judging from history, if we were really concerned with our security we would have the majority of our troops securing Afghanistan and not some country that was shut off from the Middle East prior to our
intervention.
I'm not a Republican and I'm certainly not a Democrat for the simple reason that this polarity here in the USA has put us in the situation we are currently in. Until the average American can see past partisan politics we will continue to be on a course which drastically changes from left to right or right to left. In other words, we will never move ahead to progress.
