I find it easy to dismiss most pro-war arguments, as they generally consist of ad hominems or are just variations on follow the leader. However, when people argue from humanitarian reasons, it's a lot harder to just dismiss their argument. Kanan Makiya, is one such person. This salon interview
describes him as a "radical humanist, Iraq hawk". If there is somebody who can convince me that a war against Iraq is needed, it is people like him.
However, now Makiya has launched a broadside at the Bush administrations plan for post war Iraq.
The plan reverses a decade-long moral and financial commitment by the US to the Iraqi opposition, and is guaranteed to turn that opposition from the close ally it has always been during the 1990s into an opponent of the United States on the streets of Baghdad the day after liberation.
Basically, post war Iraq will be run by very similar people to pre-war Iraq. All to keep the surrounding dictators happy. Or as Makiya says:
We Iraqis hoped and said to our Arab and Middle Eastern brethren, over and over again, that American mistakes of the past did not have to be repeated in the future. Were we wrong? Are the enemies of a democratic Iraq, the 'anti-imperialists' and 'anti-Zionists' of the Arab world, the supporters of 'armed struggle', and the upholders of the politics of blaming everything on the US who are dictating the agenda of the anti-war movement in Europe and the US, are all of these people to be proved right?