with 2,000 american soldiers now killed in iraq i have to ponder (yet again) what the fiddly fuck we are doing there. what's the mission we're trying to accomplish?
kool-aid suckers say we have to "finish the mission" in order to honor the troops already dead. first of all, noone can say what that mission is. establish a democracy? spread freedom? should freedom be something that has to be forced on a society?
second, people want to honor the dead by killing more? our presence in iraq (and the middle east in general) is only counter-productive to that country forming its own government, let alone a democracy.
in my view iraq can't be a democracy. the country is split threefold between the kurds, shiites and sunnis, none of which will be able to coexist peacefully if they feel under-represented in the new government and constitution. iraq will either split into three different countries or remain in a state of perpetual civil war.
is it a civil war now? i would say no; it seems more that the insurgent attacks are still directed mainly at the american presence and iraqis trying to support the americans. the goal is probably to maintain the disorder and violence until enough popular sentiment in the u.s. and around the world forces our government to withdraw.
hillary clinton said that we should send more forces there. i like hillary, but that's insane. it's all just a little bit of history repeating. you'll never kill an idea by just killing insurgents.
No comments:
Post a Comment