<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Monday, September 27, 2004


Answering Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr over at The Volokh Conspiracy has posed three questions to the Iraq hawks in the Blogosphere. Since I count myself among them I have decided to answer his queries, as I think it is a useful exercise for myself as well as acting as a catalyst for wider discussion. Here are his questions and my answers:

First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

Yes, I still believe that the Liberation of Iraq was a good idea. I based my initial support of Iraq's Liberation on a number of factors, including (but not limited to, and in no particular order): Saddam Hussein's continuing violation of his agreements that ended Gulf War I, SH's continuing defiance of the UN's many resolutions, SH's lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors, SH's gassing of the Kurds and his brutal tactics against his own people, the apparent existence of WMD stockpiles, the apparent existence of WMD programs, SH's support of Terrorists (both Al Qaida people and Palestinian homicide bombers). (*See also below*)

Looking back, there are only two among those reasons that are even remotely suspect and both involve WMDs (Update: Although not as suspect as some would have you believe). Since we have found at least some WMDs (although admittedly no huge stockpiles thus far) and evidence of WMD programs in various stages of dormancy, I think the balance tips in favor of the Liberation...then and now.

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

I think that the Media sells more soap by grabbing our attention. Unfortunately, our attention seems more easily grabbed by bad news than good, and so that's what makes the news cycles. That's the innocent explanation. The other is that the Media are trying to undermine our efforts in Iraq. The truth is probably a little of both, depending on whom you mean by 'the Media.' Regardless, the fact is that I do not believe the situation is nearly as bad as some would have us believe. How 'good' is it over there? For some answers try:

Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 1
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 2
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 3
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 4
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 5
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 6
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 7
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 8
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 9
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 10
Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq Part 11

Further, anyone who thought the post-Liberation road to Democracy in Iraq was going to be easy misunderstood not only the specific situation in Iraq, but also the general rule of what happens after a war. For anyone questioning the correctness of our action in Iraq based on the bad things happening in the post war period I would ask this in return: We all 'know' that WWII was one of the most resounding victories ever won in the history of warfare. Yet even with the unconditional surrender of two (or three, if you count Italy) massively successful countries, how long after the official end of WWII did American soldiers continue to die at the hands of 'insurgents' (i.e., holdout Nazis with nothing to lose)? Don't know? Look it up.

Once you figure out that the answer is 'quite a while,' I would ask: Does the fact that the post-WWII situation was quite bumpy mean that we should never have entered WWII? Of course not. The purpose of my asking the question is to put our current situation into some much needed prespective. Every life lost is a tragedy, but the greater tragedy might very well have been inaction. If you need any evidence of that then you truly are blind and I'm not sure I have the power to restore such badly damaged moral sight.

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

There are few.

First, Iraq must become inhospitable to Terrorists. In other words, the Iraqi government must no longer actively sponsor terrorism or passively allow Terrorists to live free in their country. I think that this is nearly accomplished considering the Iraqi public's growing displeasure with the Terrorists and their government's apparent dedication to wipe out such evil elements.

Second, the Iraqi people must become and remain free and adopt some sort of representative government. Ideally, we would see a stable republic of some sort form and remain in place forever. Realistically, we can only expect that America and her allies might be able to give the Iraqi people the chance to accomplish this feat which, in the end, is truly their responsibility. Additionally, accomplishing this goal/criterion will, by definition, contribute to the completion of the first (above) as free people tend, as a group, to not support Terrorism.

In my opinion, if these two conditions are met, the Liberation of Iraq will have been worth the costs. I will consider any further effects of the Liberation to be icing on the cake, so to speak. Specifically, some especially sweet icing would be that a stable, free and democratic Iraq act as a primer and model for other Middle Eastern countries to travel down a similar path towards freedom and away from their current despotism. I think that seeing freedom, peace and prosperity (as they generally flow in this order) come to the Middle East would be the absolute pinnacle of success. I can only hope that we achieve even the modest but imposing goals of helping to create a free Iraq, but I will continue to pray that we see positive changes on an even grander scale.


*I left a glaring example of Saddam's total defiance of his Gulf War I obligations, as pointed out by one of my most constant readers...my Dad =):

Hey, I just read your blog. What about the fact that Saddam Hussein was ROUTINELY firing on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. They were called no-fly in reference to Iraqi aircraft, not coalition. In fact, coalition aircraft were SUPPOSED to be there and NOT supposed to be shot at. Is that not an act of war? Must those airman be subjected to the risk of death or capture and torture to satisy some liberal-mandated acceptance of aggression? Are not THOSE mothers sons entitled to protection and safety?
Add one to the 'Liberate' side of the scale.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?