Monday, July 07, 2003

Yes, I plead guilty to not having posted about the post-war situation in Iraq. I remain skeptical of much: Skeptical of those who would rather see the Iraqis suffer as long as the US administration suffers an electoral defeat. Skeptical of those whose blinders are so set that they can't see any positives from the fact that the war happened (like, for example, some of the Israeli-Palestinian progress which likely wouldn't be on the table in any form if Saddam were still in power in Baghadad). Skeptical of the administration that seems to have felt it necessary to oversell some of the threat. And that seems somewhat incapable of getting ahold of the degree of what it takes to keep our men and women, and innocent Iraqis and others, from getting killed by the remaining creeps in Iraq. (I am not skeptical that those trying and sometimes succeeding in killing our folks et al. are, and ought to be considered, The Enemy.)

Some linkage related to all this:
  • Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has posted the first part (here) of an interview with Ken Pollack, author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Bottom line to me: The administration might have oversold, but their motivations were more likely genuine concerns than just whipping up a war frenzy.
  • The almost always enjoyable (in the way that Dr. Thompson is just about always enjoyable) Christopher Hitchens has this piece up at Slate arguing that Saddam's efforts to hide his nuclear weapons program -- and being willing to for umpteen years -- demonstrates a Jeffery Dahmeresque level of evil that would slide under the radar of those disposed to see the good in everyone. As often is the case, he's got a good point.
My own bottom line: It's too early to hold the administration in contempt.

For the war. Now their regressive tax policy and fiscal irresponsibility are other matters for which their behavior is largely contemptable.