Interesting Times has a thoughtful post on approaching Iraq as a policy issue that ties in with my previous post about the Administration's war-or-do-nothing dualism.
I believe, in my heart, that there is a case to be made for removing Hussein from power. Yes, even if it means going to war to do it.
The problem is, I simply do not trust Bush to do it right.
Any proposed solution to a problem has to meet three criteria in order for me to support it:
- Show that it is a problem that needs solving.
- Show that there is a solution that will fix the problem*
- Show that the solution will not cause as many problems, if not more so, than the original problem to be solved.
If any proposed solution fails to meet any of these three criteria then I will not support it. This is based on the conservative principle that "no solution" is better than a "bad solution".
IT goes on to reach much the same conclusion I've been forced to: "I do not trust Bush to tell me the truth about the real reason we are going to war. I do not trust him to use the war machine at his disposal in a judicious manner. And I do not trust him to either assess the consequences of his actions handle them when they come up to bite him (and us) in the ass."
The killer thing about this post is that Chris wrote it--this reluctant assessment that Bush has proved himself unfit to wage this war--after seeing a Fox News broadcast of the aftermath of an alleged Iraqi poison gas attack whose victims included children. From my reaction to his description, I'm sure I'd have found the images just as upsetting.
*Note: in the comment thread, I mentioned my belief that with regard to step 2, there's often more than one possible solution, so there's an additional burden to show that the favored plan is more desirable--lest risk/cost, more benefit, or both. I just am not seeing anything to support the notion that the Administration is willing to engage in an honest policy debate.