the international forces pacifier myth"Question: When is a conquering army a liberator rather than an occupier?" According to Richard E. Rubenstein the answer is: as soon as we get the heck out of Iraq. The logic goes that, things can only get worse for us, so let's leave! Yeah, that's a bright idea, Let's leave a power vaccuum so the Taliban -middle east can seize power with their boots on the necks of the average Iraqi. Or better yet, they could try and assault the Kurdish areas and instigate a civil war. But the idiocy gets better! As the tragic bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad shows, the U.N. is no more credible as long as it functions as an arm of the occupation authority.So the UN, which basically opposed the coalition every step of the way, is suddenly our lackey because it got attacked? And the answer to prevent further attacks is a more diverse group of multinational forces on the ground? If the UN, which is the most diverse multinational body on Earth, suffered the most lethal attack, shouldn't that lead us to conclude that the Iraqi Insurrection is being led by forces which oppose all outside aide in Iraq, and not just the US/UK/Coalition forces? Since rational people should be able to understand why that is, isn't it imperative that we prevent these forces from seizing control of Iraq? UPDATE: Viking Pundit has more on the myth of failure in Iraq. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
