ChapelHillSooner
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,303
I think one thing that Trump may have in his favor vs Iraq is that the goal is not stability. It is to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity.No. “Let’s see how it plays out” is a posture of non-judgment, a shrug at the exercise of power. What I’m arguing is the opposite: that we should judge this action now, based on what we know: its legality, its precedent, its likely consequences.
You want to wait for history to confirm or refute your instincts. I’m saying the history is already there: we’ve seen this playbook before. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Toppling regimes without a plan for what comes next doesn’t lead to stability; it leads to catastrophe. Pretending that’s unknowable or premature is just a way of avoiding responsibility for cheering it on.
Bush’s argument was not just WMD’s but also regime change to free the Iraqis from a brutal dictator. If you pretend to be acting in the best interest of a country, you have tied your goals to stability.
Trump may just say to hell with Iranians as long as they don’t develop nukes or continue to threaten US interests.
That isn’t a morally sound goal but something that may be achievable without boots on the ground.