Reuters: Blix Says Iraq Worse Off After War
“It’s positive that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when one weighs the costs, it’s clearly the negative aspects that dominate,†Blix told daily Jyllands-Posten in an interview.
The Swedish diplomat has criticized the United States and Britain for going to war without U.N. approval rather than allowing his team to continue its hunt for banned weapons.
In the interview, Blix said the war had contributed to a destabilization of the Middle East and a move away from democracy in the region, adding that even though Iraqis had been spared life under a dictator, it was at too high a cost.
“Bush declared war as a part of the U.S. war on terror, but instead of limiting the effects of terror, the war has laid the foundation for even more terror,†Blix said.
Via Laurence Simon at Command Post. The commenters so far, shall we say, disagree with Blix.
Blix is probably right if he’s saying that most Iraqis are worse off at this very minute than they were before the war. But that seems like a silly measuring stick. The transition to democracy is far from completed and, indeed, it’s not even yet “after the war.”
Every significant revolution–hot or cold–to overthrow tyranny resulted in a period where people’s lives were worsened. Surely, the American colonists were better off paying higher taxes on tea and whatnot than they were during the height of the war? Ditto Americans on both sides, probably even the slaves, during the American Civil War. Or the French during and for decades after their Revolution. The Russians after the fall of the Communists. The list goes on and on.
The question is will the Iraqi people be better off–not to mention the region more peaceful–years down the road with a follow-up regime that emerges from this conflict than would have been the case had Saddam stayed in power and eventually turned the reigns over to Uday and Qusay. My strong suspicion is that Blix will be wrong in the longer term.
