In a discussion yesterday, I tossed of the notion that while I was quite pleased the Panamanians were, for the part, quite happy with the results of our 1989 invasion, that doesn't mean the invasion was either justified or made better ex post facto. It was, I called, an unintended consequence, and while certainly a nice result, is irrelevant to any argument concerning the justice or goodness of the invasion itself.
One of the arguments one often hears from defenders of our Iraqi invasion is that Iraq is far better off than it was under Sadaam Hussein. I still wonder about that. First of all, right now, the anarchy and violence and general unease about the future in Iraq hardly bodes well. Yet, I do believe that in a decade or so Iraq will probably be relatively stable, and for the most part (unless another autocrat seizes power) be far better off than at any time under Hussein and the Ba'ath party.
So what.
We didn't invade Iraq to free them. Had we done so, there were far better candidates for national liberation than Iraq. The specifics for the invasion - all of which turned out to be false, either knowingly or not (another post is needed to cover that issue) - were our own national security. These are perfectly legitimate reasons to invade a country (in general; in this specific case, not so much). While I am quite happy that the Iraqi are free of Saddam Hussein, I also think that is of no consequence. It is, as the title says, an unintended consequence. It does not alter the fact that our invasion was illegal, sold with lies, and our ongoing occupation is making an already bad situation much, much worse.
Virtual Tin Cup
