Contrary to what you’ve read in the newspapers, we are not debating whether to “change course” in Iraq. We are debating whether to accept defeat in Iraq.May's just wrong. Our continued presence in Iraq has nothing to do with winning or losing, except in the neocons' minds. They so very much hoped Iraq would be the victory that would wipe away the legacy of defeat that has stayed with them from Vietnam. Iraq was to be the place the Vietnam score would be settled.
Contrary to what you’ve seen on television, there is no way for us to “end the war.” If we retreat from Iraq, the war will not just continue but expand. The only difference is that a battlefield on which we are now killing our enemies will be transformed into a base from which our enemies can safely plan to kill us.
But Paul Hackett has been right. There is nothing to accomplish by staying. There are no military objectives. By staying we sustain what is, to the area, a destabilizing presence while putting American soldiers into the crossfire of a civil war between ethnic factions.
Only the neocons think America's global reputation is on the line. The rest of the world already knows we have the capability to do extensive damage with our military firepower, and it despises the misuse of that power. Our international reputation is no longer on the line.
May's second paragraph is nothing more than a tired recitation of the sophistic "Flypaper Theory," and is not worthy of further debunking. The righties have been using this one since they decided to tool up for the Iraq war, and it makes no more sense now than it did then.
No comments:
Post a Comment