Today, amongst the crunch of numbers, I read this:
Also, just 17% of American voters believe the U.S. would be safer today if we had avoided the War with Iraq and left Hussein in power.
What a stupid poll question. The underlying assumption is that we had only two choices -- (a) leave Saddam alone or (b) do exactly what we did. It's a sneaky way of manufacturing support for Bush policies by leaving out all the alternatives but one.
It's like asking, "Do you think schools will be less overcrowded if we kill the youngest male in every household?" It's justification of the ends of the worst sort. You don't have to show *only* bad outcomes for the action itself to be bad. Sometimes stupid, short-sighted, ham-fisted actions can produce positive effects in amongst the disastrous ones.
There's really to parts to that question -- (1) Is the world a safer place without Saddam? and (2) Is the US safer as a result of the Iraq War? Paradoxically enough, I believe the answer to (1), taken by itself, is yes. The answer to (2), though, is pretty clearly no. I can't imagine how the fractured alliances, widespread resentment, distraction from pursuing al Qaeda, and increased terrorist recruiting have made America safer.
A better question might have been, "Should we have found a different way to deal with Saddam or was our action the best solution to the problem?" But then, I'm not doing the polling.
Ryan
