1 new of 122 responses total.
I have to disagree with Rane. This isn't assassination. In the first
place, I don't believe killing Saddam or his sons is the goal. I
haven't been following this closely, but I think they'd prefer to take
him alive.
Second, they are legitimate military targets in what is obviously a war.
No, it hasn't been properly declared, but that's not especially Bush's
fault. Our wimpy congressional noodles (of both parties) have entirely
abandoned the congressional responsibility to declare war. They haven't
done in in ages. The notion that this is not a war is a stupid
political fiction. For all moral purposes this is a war.
I don't like the ransoms much, but I don't consider them illegal or
immoral in the current context. I think they bad tactically. It may
play well in the US, but I'd guess that it will spin badly in Iraq. In
the minds of Iraqis, who are the Iraq citizens who cooperate with the
Americans:
(1) Iraqi patriots working for a better future for all of Iraqi, or
(2) Greedy traitors, helping America against their own people for
personal gain.
It's vital to the success of the American mission in Iraq that the Iraqi
people eventually except option (1). The more people believe that, the
safer our troops in Iraq will be. Our enemies in Iraq will be pushing
view (2). The more people believe that, the more Iraqis will oppose us
or refuse to help us, and the more Americans will die. These extremely
public and extremely large bribes draw a lot of attention. The people
who get these ransoms will be among the most prominent Iraqis "friendly"
to the US, among the first to come to mind when ordinary Iraqi people
think of people friendly to America. And they fit resoundingly into
category (2). The whole thing can be spun very strongly against
America's mission in Iraq. Our claim is that we are there for the good
of the people to depose the hated tyrant Saddam. Offering huge bribes
to the people to try to convince them to help us catch Sadam undermines
that claim. If the people really hate Saddam and love us, then they
shouldn't need such buge bribes to cooperate with us. Offering so huge
a bribe suggests that it would take such a huge bribe to convince
someone to turn Saddam in to us.
So my reading of this is that the bribes improve Bush's image in the US
as a tough leader who will stop at nothing to bring down the bad guy,
but undermine our stated mission in Iraq. Which doesn't much surprise
me because I think Bush has told mostly lies about why we are in Iraq. I
much prefered presidents who mostly just lied about their sex lives.
I don't think these ransoms will ultimately cost more American lives.
They would if we meant to stay there in the long run, but I think Bush
will pack up and leave as soon as he can plausibly declare victory.
Killing or catching Saddam might well be that point, and the bribes
could speed that up. Getting our troops out faster may save more lives
than cranking up the hatred for our troops costs. Plus getting out
troops out before the election would be good for Bush.
You have several choices: