R
rdean
Guest
I believe the similarities and differences can be summed up in two events.
Removing Saddam
Removing Qaddafi
Both were brutal Middle East dictators
Both were removed with a multi nation coalition involving the US and it's allies.
But there, the similarities end.
Bush's coalition was put together mostly with nations that owe us money or who we pay money too. Most nations in Bush's coalition sent less than a dozen soldiers. Some, only one or two. And we had to transport them to Iraq and feed them and house them.
Over 3,000 Americans died. Over 30,000 maimed. Upwards to a trillion dollars was spent and the cost of tens of thousands of soldiers who have been maimed could cost trillions more (which Republicans will assign to Obama). Our military depleted and our standing in the world greatly diminished. Shoes thrown at our president. Nearly a million Christians unaccounted for (Bush publicly stated that protecting Christians would place then in even greater danger by showing "favoritism"). America had to be cajoled with information from the Bush administration that even Bush now says was false (The number one reason we went into Iraq, WMD's were never found. His greatest disappointment according to his own book.) Oil would pay for the war.
In Libya, Obama publicly announced the ONLY reason we were helping was to protect the Libyan people from being slaughtered. No American troops died. The cost was a fraction of a fraction of the cost of Iraq and yet, essentially, the same goals were meant. And the coalition was a true coalition. We didn't pay a single country to be there.
I suspect the outcome in Libya will be the same that it was for Iraq. A Muslim theocracy by constitution that will make all women citizens "subservient" and second class citizens. At this time, in the Middle East, this is probably unavoidable. Pouring money into those countries is not allowing them to develop away from the Dark Ages that they still are part of. They aren't jealous of us because of our "freedoms". This makes twice they have been given that opportunity and both times they simply aren't interested.
But it's the two methods used for achieving the same end that will determine future foreign policy.
Removing Saddam
Removing Qaddafi
Both were brutal Middle East dictators
Both were removed with a multi nation coalition involving the US and it's allies.
But there, the similarities end.
Bush's coalition was put together mostly with nations that owe us money or who we pay money too. Most nations in Bush's coalition sent less than a dozen soldiers. Some, only one or two. And we had to transport them to Iraq and feed them and house them.
Over 3,000 Americans died. Over 30,000 maimed. Upwards to a trillion dollars was spent and the cost of tens of thousands of soldiers who have been maimed could cost trillions more (which Republicans will assign to Obama). Our military depleted and our standing in the world greatly diminished. Shoes thrown at our president. Nearly a million Christians unaccounted for (Bush publicly stated that protecting Christians would place then in even greater danger by showing "favoritism"). America had to be cajoled with information from the Bush administration that even Bush now says was false (The number one reason we went into Iraq, WMD's were never found. His greatest disappointment according to his own book.) Oil would pay for the war.
In Libya, Obama publicly announced the ONLY reason we were helping was to protect the Libyan people from being slaughtered. No American troops died. The cost was a fraction of a fraction of the cost of Iraq and yet, essentially, the same goals were meant. And the coalition was a true coalition. We didn't pay a single country to be there.
I suspect the outcome in Libya will be the same that it was for Iraq. A Muslim theocracy by constitution that will make all women citizens "subservient" and second class citizens. At this time, in the Middle East, this is probably unavoidable. Pouring money into those countries is not allowing them to develop away from the Dark Ages that they still are part of. They aren't jealous of us because of our "freedoms". This makes twice they have been given that opportunity and both times they simply aren't interested.
But it's the two methods used for achieving the same end that will determine future foreign policy.
