Interesting thought
I’ve heard a few “arguments” against Iraq by people attempting to appear hawkish. These consist of one of the following statements
- Why didn’t we attack Iran or Saudi Arabia, since they were more actively supporting terrorists
- We should have done more to get the French and Germans (well, they say ‘our allies’) to join us
The problem with both of these arguments is that they are circulalry dependent.
We went to Iraq because it serves to isolate both Iran and Saudi Arabia, and gives us a staging area free of the Kindgom of Saudi Arabia. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are all on the short list. Of this I have no doubts.
As to why we don’t have the French and Germans, well, we need look no further than the Oil-for-Dictators scandal to see why they opposed Iraq. Given that they also opposed intervention in Kosovo, and for similar reasons (they were both cozy with Milosevic), we need to consider that anywhere that the U.S. interests and the French interests do not coincide, they will actively oppose us. For further evidence, I point to you to Darfur, Sudan. France has finally sent in a token contingent to alleviate (not prevent) the genocide of black muslims, animists, and christians in the Darfur region. France has major oil interests in Sudan in areas controlled by the government that has been supporting the genocide by the Arab muslim janjaweed in Darfur, hence their dilemma.
So, those of you making either of these arguments about Iraq should consider that France has interests in other oil-producing countries as well. Can we count on France to put our national security ahead of their financial interests? I doubt it.