The Iraq Civil War
Harold Meyerson writes about the question raised by John Warner on whether to enact a resolution authorizing American troops to remain in an Iraq racked by civil war and how such a resolution would lay bare the failure of Administration policy on Iraq.
Harold is being generous. The fact of the matter is, the United States started the Civil War when it began trying to oust Saddam during Bush 41's Administration. This civil war is not sectarian as much as it is tribal.
Harold is also correct on how we can't solve this. However, because it is an arab tribal conflict, it should be settled by their traditional sovereign, the holder of the Hashemite throne and heir of the Prophet, King Abdullah of Jordan who should settle the boundaries of the division of this artificial nation.
For more on this (including comments on American hegemony), go to http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/Iraq.html
Harold is being generous. The fact of the matter is, the United States started the Civil War when it began trying to oust Saddam during Bush 41's Administration. This civil war is not sectarian as much as it is tribal.
Harold is also correct on how we can't solve this. However, because it is an arab tribal conflict, it should be settled by their traditional sovereign, the holder of the Hashemite throne and heir of the Prophet, King Abdullah of Jordan who should settle the boundaries of the division of this artificial nation.
For more on this (including comments on American hegemony), go to http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/Iraq.html
posted by Michael Bindner at 10:15 AM
1 Comments:
"Baby Boom" Anti-War Effect on the Iraq War
The sentiment against an extended war in Iraq has grown much more quickly than in the past. Part of the reason was that in the Gulf War we were able to get in and out quickly. The bombing of Serbia into submission was even quicker. We were promised more of the same by the Bush Administration in our WMD war in Iraq.
It was the Gulf War, though, that got us over the supposed "Vietnam Syndrome," misinterpreted by most conservatives as Americans not wanting to fight any war. Post-Vietnam society never really suffered from a "syndrome," which sounds like a serious mental malady.
Instead, U.S society had learned an important lesson; that the U.S. could not always impose its will on other countries. Americans of the "baby boom" lived, and many fought, through that senseless, bloody war.
Back in the 1960's and '70's the anti-war movement started on campuses and moved slowly into the social mainstream. Although not a movement today, Republicans should not forget that the boomers are still here, and do remember the real lessons of Vietnam. One is that there should be no open-ended commitments to war.
The people who started the Iraq war were the Young Republicans of the 1960's. They were the guys like Cheney with the short hair, rather than the long hair, who were avoiding the draft. There were no Young Democrats because the anti-war movement was a spontaneous movement, not a political one. The anti-war movement party didn't trust either political party.
Those Young (now old) Republicans who got us into Iraq, are the conservatives who totally misinterpreted Vietnam as a "sydrome" rather than a lesson to be learned about the limits of American power. Since they refused to learn that lesson, we are all paying the price in terms of dead soldiers, huge deficits, and no "light at the end of the tunnel."
Now the "boomers" are in their 50's and 60's, and once again see their country stuck in what seems an open-ended commitment to war, another one of the real lessons of Vietnam. That's why anti-war sentiment in the country has arisen so much more quickly over the Iraq war than it did in Vietnam.
The boomers are also now in the age range that produces the highest voter turnout. So beware pro-war politicians. Don't let the Vietnam Syndrome get you down, and out of elective office.
Post a Comment
<< Home