My Iraq War Debate

I have been having an argument with a libertarian friend of mine.

He is not your classic libertarian who I think would oppose war with Iraq.

His reasons for the war seem to be two. One: Saddam has been in breach of the peace treaty that ended the Gulf War and he is bad and dangerous. Two: we need to destroy or convert Islamic related terrorists who have a fourteenth century mindset. He feels the best way to do this is to occupy Iraq like we did Japan and undertake a similar cultural conversion.

A recent e-mail exchange had him arguing that he supports::

"1) using force to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of a
ruthless, aggressive dictator,
(2) enforcing a peace treaty,
(3) liberating a suffering nation from said dictator, and
(4) doing what is right regardless of conflicts of interest that
prevent other nations from cooperating,"

I argue the above is a stronger case for attacking North Korea, which I oppose as being even more dangerous and destructive.

As for the mass conversion or destruction of Islamic-related terrorists: I have seen no plans by this administration to convert "Islamofascists" to modern Republicans, which a small articulate group seems to want. (Look up warbloggers if you want.)

Based on what the administration is doing in Afghanistan and their reluctance for both "nation-building" and to having 75,000 US troops tied down indefinitely, I conclude they have no plan for what occurs after the war. They are likely to prop-up a friendlier-to-the-US dictator than Saddam Hussein. This is a common US practice. I call it Republicans preferring those governments who can do what they dream about.

I found that major elements of this administration have been wanting to get rid of Saddam and invade Iraq since before the election. This continued through this fall when they suddenly decided it had to be done right now. The decision on timing was strictly political.

There is evidence it is more about the oil and a foreign policy doctrine that it is time the United States became the world empire and more obviously dominate other countries.

I can see little evidence, that I believe, that the administration is going to war for my friend's reasons. Those reasons just make the war more palatable for people than the administration's real reasons - going for the oil and instituting an overall more aggressive and dominating foreign policy.

I will mention that I think the war is more popular with fundamental Christians and Jews than it should be because eliminating Saddam and installing an American leaning government is very much in Israel's interest. I think the fact taking out Iraq is so much more in Israel's interest actually makes success in eliminating or converting "Islamofascists" less likely.

My position on this war- Saddam has to allow full inspections and disarm.
If he doesn't we have the option of an invasion or of destroying every palace, government building and military installation in Iraq by air strikes.
In either case, Saddam should be tried as a war criminal.
Once Saddam is gone, by whatever means, we should stop sanctions and help creat a stable government.
Only if we invade should we occupy Iraq like we did Japan and establish a new stable government.

Invading and occupying Iraq is the true goal of this administration as it meets both the Pax Americana needs and gets the oil.