>Brian Siano:
>
>
>
>>And the U.S. is certainly complicit in creating this
>>monster-- so one could argue that the U.S. has the responsibility of
>>removing him from power.
>>
>>
>
>And some supporters of the invasion, like Hitchens and Sullivan, have argued
>that precise point, even though it's an ahistorical one. The US also had a
>hand in helping Turkey massacre Kurds, but where are the calls for an
>invasion of Turkey? And if we owe the Iraqis so much that we must invade and
>occupy their country to set things right, then what do we owe the
>Palestinians? I would think as much if not more.
>
>
I agree (though I don't think an invasion's the best tactic in every
case). The U.S. has incurred any number of responsibilities for the
horrors of the world. Iraq is one of the few cases where the U.S. has
done something that repairs _some_ of it. Personally, I'd like to see it
go much further-- for example, if the Iraqis start to investigate the
connections between Saddam and the U.S. more closely, and they decide
that they wish to bring such figures as Rumsfeld and Bush Senior under
investigation for complicity. In other words, just taking Saddam out
doesn't give the U.S. a clean slate.
Obviously, no one here expects the Bush gang to go _that_ far, and their motives are certainly _not_ what Hitchens and Sullivan would like us to think. (The NY Times just reported that the only people allowed to interrogate Saddam now are the CIA. Just wonderful.) But there's nothing to prevent the American people from demanding it, outside of our own apathy and disinterest.
Saying that the argument is "ahistorical" isn't exactly correct. After all, it _relies_ on the recognition of the long and sordid history of the U.S.'s foreign policy. But if it's "ahistorical" because it posits a break with the historical record of our support of evil regimes, than yeah, it's ahistorical.
But by that argument, expecting _any_ kind of change in foreign policy is ahistorical. Demanding that the U.S. _stop_ supporting dictators is ahistorical.