Victory and Defeat
Reading CheneyBush's reaction to the bills tying war funding to withdrawl, I am painfully aware of how little is there. Here's Tony Snow on 19 March:
...a war spending bill up for consideration by the full House this week would "provide victory for the enemy....That is not a fund-the-troops bill but a withdraw-the-troops bill," Snow said. "We think that is an approach that is conducive to defeat. It is a recipe for failure, not for victory. ... It would provide victory for the enemy and not the much-needed and deserved victory for the people of Iraq. Furthermore, it would forfeit the sacrifice that our troops have made in the field."
That statement pretty much sums up the current arguement for continued war and occupation in Iraq. And it pretty much shows how hollow an arguement it is. It's all about VICTORY and DEFEAT, SACRIFICE and CATASTROPHIC consequences. Actually the George W. module said "catastrophic". I'm sure the Big Dick module has said something very similar. You get the idea: it's all about fear.
But it's not about defeat or victory. Iraq and America's overall policy for the middle east SHOULD be about SOLVING PROBLEMS that threaten to destabilize yet another part of the world (of course, this one has OIL). When you're solving problems, victory and defeat are not the issue; success in finding a workable solution should be the focus. That's why ending the United States occupation does not necessarily mean defeat. It will not be a change from a failed strategy that has created much chaos and death to one that rachets down the violence. I fully expect the United States to participate in reconstructing Iraq, with generous funding to repair the damage we have caused. But reconstruction, like political reconciliation is an Iraqi responsibility and duty, it will only occur once they settle their differences. The US cannot win the Iraq civil war. Only Iraqis can do that
Therein lies the problem to be solved.
posted by Rez Dog at 8:38 AM
3 Comments:
Therein lies the problem to be solved.
and not by us. the only thing that will be accomplished by a continued U.S. combat presence is a hardening of the opposition. just as our last five years of viet nam brought about an angry, almost pathological hatred in the hearts of the victors and not one single thing that was not on the table in '58, continuing the fight in iraq will make sure that the vilest and craziest of the bunch are the ones left standing.
thucydides remarked on this very phenomenon in his history of the pelopponessian war. by the time 25 years (there were a few periods of resting and rebuilding) had passed neither sparta nor athens had anybody left to carry on life as usual. the athenians never regained the prominence they had before they arrogantly ginned up the war, the spartans were a hollow shell that merely waited to be pierced by epaminondas and his thebans. much like the mideast of today the only true victor in the war between athens and sparta was persia, whose armies ended up with legions of greek mercenaries plying the only trade 25 years of war allowed them to learn.
we won't need a G.I. bill for our troops returning, we have Blackwater.
MB, did you mean '58 or '68?
'58 when it was pretty obvious that the french would be having to leave (dien bien phu was right around the corner). what people don't hear about is that the french used american equipment (with attendant "tech reps") were ferried back to viet nam after ww2 on american ships and were totally dependant upon american supplies and air support. everything we got from the north in '75 could have been achieved in '58.
Post a Comment
<< Home