PHOTOS, PAGE 1

       Editor and prime reporter is Doug Terry, a veteran television and radio reporter in   Washington, DC, (details below)

QUICK TAKE: differences between intervention in Libya versus Iraq

FROM THE NY TIMES:

March 29, 2011, 10:52 am

Echoes of Bush in Obama’s Libya Speech

To those who would, and have, directly compared his intervention in Libya to Mr. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, Mr. Obama rejected the similarities and made clear that he had no interest in another protracted war.

THE TERRYREPORT:

1. Saddam in Iraq was not engaged in the immediate mass murder of his population, so far as we know (aside from torture and imprisonment, which goes on in virtually every dictatorial country, all the time.

2. Saddam was not engaged in an active Civil War with opposing forces.

3. Active military actions against regime in Iraq were limited at the time of the American invasion.

4. There was no democracy movement in Iraq nor in the rest of the middle east (timing).

5. Saddam’s atrocities against his own people had been carried out in the 1980s, rather late in 2003 to be reacting.

6. The U.S. in Libya has the support of a significant number of major nations, not merely the “willing”, as in Iraq.

7. The U.S. is not committing to rebuilding Libya from the ground up by creating social and political institutions and having ground troops present for years. (Any commitment could lead to this, of  course, no matter the intentions at the start.)

8. Iraq is a larger, more complicated nation than Libya.

9. No one invited us into Iraq, whereas we are being welcomed by the rebels in Libya.

When the U.S. claimed its motive in Iraq was the spread of democracy, we were insisting on something the people of Iraq had not insisted on themselves. Democracy depends on popular support and a willingness of various groups to accept less than they would like, therefore, it requires an act of will to start and sustain.

CONTACT THE TERRYREPORT

       HOME PAGE

end