Wednesday, May 02, 2007

From the Comments


I've been poking around in the comment sections of Iraqi blogs and I thought I would post them here.
By the way, I'm looking for the comment that "with the death of Al-Masri, Al-Qaeda in Iraq has selected a new leader: Harry Reid." Some help?
At HealingIraq, Azad comments on Riverbend's departure for the Summer Lands (h/t RhusLancia):
Riverbend leaving Iraq = De-Ba'athification
That's pretty dang funny.

I know this isn't going last, but BaghdadTreasure left a comment at Iraqi Mojo that was mostly rational:
Everyone is to blame in this madness. No one is excluded. Even the words we write are responsible for everything that is happening there.

It's a struggle for power. First, the US came for many purposes, the Baathists were gone but made sure to destroy the country out of revenge, the Shiites came back from exile and vowed to get revenge and kill Sunnis considering them Baathists and al-Qaeda supported by neighboring countries seized the opportunity to send the the terrorists to our land to get rid of them. Only innocent people are in the middle of this struggle for power.

So everyone is to blame.
Treasure of Baghdad
Pretty good for BT. I hope his knew med schedule works out, but then a lot of people say that about Jeffrey. ;-)

BT's comment does leave one thing out, or at the very least, seriously soft-pedals it: The "original sin" of Iraq's trouble, the choice of so many of Iraq's Sunni Arabs to abstain from the new Iraq for 2 full years. All the other disasters led directly or indirectly from that:
And BT is right that the US came to Iraq for many reasons; although I refuse to delude myself that he truly understands what those reasons were. And he is wrong that those reasons were a contributing factor to Iraq's troubles today. Primarily, the US's reasons were self-preservation. After 9-11, the US was like a man who suddenly realizes that his debts are (and have been for a while) far beyond his capacity to pay them. So what does he do?
  1. He starts budgeting (the US tightened security within its borders and abroad).

  2. He dispenses with every luxury (the US invades Afghanistan)

  3. He pays down any debt starting with the low hanging fruit....

    That was what Saddam was: A liability the US could no longer afford after 12 years.
Saddam wasn't the worst tyrant in that region where our foreign policy had been broken for 20 years. He wasn't the fanciest harbor for terrorists. But if we couldn't settle with Saddam, there was no way we could justify settling with anyone else (Libya was the obvious next choice and Qadaffy knew it).

So the US came to liberate Iraq for it's own good, not primarily the good of Iraqis. So, I've never expected or even wanted thanks from any Iraqis. Still, a thriving liberal democracy *is* in the interests of every Iraqi except Al-Sadr. So we're partners. Neither of us can afford to drop his end.

And if anyone asks why the US does not then liberate Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria, I say it is because doing so is not in the interests of the US at this time....but, personally, I'm game if you are!

The greatest lost opportunity about Iraq's failure to thrive, from America's point of view and perhaps for Iraq as well, is that we were unable to finish the job in Syria and Iran. Any other regrets? Yeah. Lots. But what of it? If you have to go to Hell, there's no point bawling about it.
"CMAR II, you idiot. How can you say we "had to go"? Don't you know Saddam had no WMDs that he could give to terrorists use in America?"
Yeah, I know that. But we didn't know that then, did we? And never would know as long as Saddam and his good-time-boys were running things. Now we DO know he didn't, and that he never will. That's called "paying down those debts." Let's see...which credit card is next on the list?



<< Home
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?