I, for one, used to take a stance somewhat against the Iraq war, however, in light of some recent considerations, I now support it.
Ground Rules: I will not be talking about ethics, lying and all the other charges brought up against the Bush Administration. Whatever happened to get us into Iraq is history, what we need to consider now is purely cost-benefit analysis. The remainder of the post will be devoid of any potential ethical malfeasance that may or may not have come about in getting us involved in Iraq.
When considering military action, one need not only consider the costs associated with taking action, but also the cost of inaction. Whenever a given Olberman wishes to make a case against the war, they always make an argument from the loss of blood and treasure, without considering the potential benefit of taking the action. Here are a few things to think about before outright rejecting the Iraq war.
Arguably, the most dangerous region in the world is the middle east. In order to maintain the security of the world, and avoid World War 3, the Middle East must remain stable. If there is one thing that Jimmy Carter did right, it was the Camp David Accords. By maintaining peace between Israel and Egypt, the two most militarily powerful countries in the Middle East, a period of unprecedented stability followed.
Sadly, like all treaties, this too shall pass. The current president of Egypt, Housni Moubarak, is on his last legs. At the age of 83 and struggling with esophageal cancer, people are surprised to still see him alive, let alone in any position to run the country. Nonetheless, when his day of reckoning comes, a power vacuum will arise. When that does happen one of three people, or groups of people will take over.
One possibility is that the culturally liberal Albaredi takes over. If that were to happen, Egypt will enter into a long period of economic prosperity, and Ramses the Second will rise from his tomb and walk the streets of Cairo singing "Everybody Dance Now!". Sorry I got a little carried away there. Whenever I begin a thought with something as unlikely as the election of Albaredi, I decend into ludicrousness.
Another possibility is that Hosni Mubarak corrupt son Gamal takes office. Everyone will shout death to the pseudo-monarchy, but this may very well be the US's only hope for stability.
The final possibility, which I dread, is that the terrorist organization known as the Muslim brotherhood takes over Egypt. The reason for my dread is due to their marked anti-Israeli stance. Just to put things in perspective, Hamas, the main opposition to Israel, is a wing of the Islamic brotherhood. If they take over the Egyptian government, which they are poised to do, the treaty between Egypt and Israel will be as good as gone.
This brings me back full circle to my main argument. By taking over Iraq, the USA, makes sure that the region erupts if, er I mean, when Mubarak kicks the bucket. Iraq, if nothing else, may very well be the only foothold that the United States has in the middle East. The Afghani president hates our guts, The Saudi king is on his last legs and Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear power.
I can't believe I am about to say this, but the only bright spot in the Middle East may very well be Iraq.
[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="628" caption="Middle East"][/caption]