Reading the Iraqi blogs in an attempt to understand what is actually happening, there seems a strange quiet. One wonders if there might be intimidation. Some blogs are anonymous.
One cannot force democracy on people who do not want it. Iraq enjoyed a degree of security and stability under a totalitarian leader. Was this best? Perhaps, but Saddam sank a US Cruiser with an Exorcist missal while the US was trying to retrieve hostages from Tehran. He invaded Kuwait. He made an attempt on the former President Bush’s life. He made payment to surviving families of suicide bombers. (It should not be too hard to find suicide bombers when the bomber can assure his family of a fortune and an education for his children by the unselfish act of blowing himself up along with a dozen or so innocent bystanders.) These were not acts of the Iraqi people yet they bear the brunt.
As for the invasion of Iraq, right or wrong, at best it is the right thing for the wrong reason, the occupation leaves much to be desired. The strategy was to engage terrorists. That, they have done. Many of them may be trapping themselves in Fallujah. The occupation attracted terrorists like a magnet. The collateral damage however is awesome and unacceptable. This strategy makes Iraq the battleground. Worse for our interests, the terrorist receives shelter (Dakhala), and recruits to their cause, not that there are not others ready to fight for religious, tribal or ethnic reasons. One should not forget the colossal Civil War the US went through to achieve an accord. I cannot imagine Iraq doing less. It may have already started.
Who is the enemy? Is he a totalitarian theocrat thus far without a country but in many countries, growing, multiplying and filling his ranks. One might ask, is he us, or for that matter yourselves? What happens if we do nothing or make nice? It may be that every strategy fails in combating terrorism. If so, what difference which one fails first?
Information is so suspect, so existential in the Middle East. You describe the wedding in terms that are in stark contrast with the posting of a soldier who was there. Was he a greenhorn with buck fever, did he imagine antlers on a cow, or were those really RPGs that fired on him. He has little to gain by lying. He just wants to go home.
One cannot force democracy on people who do not want it. Iraq enjoyed a degree of security and stability under a totalitarian leader. Was this best? Perhaps, but Saddam sank a US Cruiser with an Exorcist missal while the US was trying to retrieve hostages from Tehran. He invaded Kuwait. He made an attempt on the former President Bush’s life. He made payment to surviving families of suicide bombers. (It should not be too hard to find suicide bombers when the bomber can assure his family of a fortune and an education for his children by the unselfish act of blowing himself up along with a dozen or so innocent bystanders.) These were not acts of the Iraqi people yet they bear the brunt.
As for the invasion of Iraq, right or wrong, at best it is the right thing for the wrong reason, the occupation leaves much to be desired. The strategy was to engage terrorists. That, they have done. Many of them may be trapping themselves in Fallujah. The occupation attracted terrorists like a magnet. The collateral damage however is awesome and unacceptable. This strategy makes Iraq the battleground. Worse for our interests, the terrorist receives shelter (Dakhala), and recruits to their cause, not that there are not others ready to fight for religious, tribal or ethnic reasons. One should not forget the colossal Civil War the US went through to achieve an accord. I cannot imagine Iraq doing less. It may have already started.
Who is the enemy? Is he a totalitarian theocrat thus far without a country but in many countries, growing, multiplying and filling his ranks. One might ask, is he us, or for that matter yourselves? What happens if we do nothing or make nice? It may be that every strategy fails in combating terrorism. If so, what difference which one fails first?
Information is so suspect, so existential in the Middle East. You describe the wedding in terms that are in stark contrast with the posting of a soldier who was there. Was he a greenhorn with buck fever, did he imagine antlers on a cow, or were those really RPGs that fired on him. He has little to gain by lying. He just wants to go home.
Comments