"Before you face that question, consider this. Salih has been through some tough moments in his time. Most of the massacres and betrayals of the Kurdish people of Iraq took place with American support or connivance. But the Kurds have pressed ahead with regime change in any case. Surely a ‘peace movement’ with any principles should be demanding that the United States not abandon them again?
Instead, there is a self-satisfied isolationism to be found, across the west. But the option of a quiet life disappeared on 11 September 2001. The United States is now at war with the forces of reaction. Nobody is entitled to view this battle as a spectator. The Union under Lincoln wasn’t wholeheartedly against slavery. The USA under Roosevelt had its own selfish agenda even in combating Hitler and Hirohito. The hot-and-cold war against Stalinism wasn’t free of blemish and stain. How much this latest crisis turns into an even tougher war with reaction, at home or abroad, could depend partly upon those who currently think that it is either possible or desirable to remain neutral."
This essay was more about point scoring against the Left than justifying invasion of Iraq but some balance appears in the final paragraphs above. As OliveOyl has pointed out that the Kurds may be eventual losers if Saddam is deposed and their "nofly zone" protection is removed.
Your paste from Philip Bobbitt (glad to see he's recovered from the micro-surgery enough to write) praises the US for pulling out of the countries it intervenes in. He shows no concerns about the legality of this - sees it as a divine right, but the fact is that the only constructive intervention the US has ever presided over was Japan after the War when the US spent time and money occupying and repairing the economy after the surrender. They don't do that anymore because Japan rose to threaten them economically. Now they just raid a country to suit themselves and leave it wounded and pliable.
