Some of it was inevitable. Some of it – e.g., the dissolution of the Iraqi army and government – was done after the invasion on order of our viceroy Paul Bremer.
By all means, if we could fix it. It has been obvious for a long time now that our troops’ presence is just making things worse. Yes, if we pull out there will be a civil war. If was stay there will be a civil war; it will just take longer and cost more lives, including American lives. If Vietnam taught us one lesson (apart from “Never get into a land war in Asia”), it should be that getting involved in another country’s civil war is almost always a very, very bad idea. Far better to let the Iraqis sort out their differences their own violent way, and get it all over with as quickly as possible so whoever emerges as the new regime can get started on putting the country (or countries) back together.
I see no reason to believe we have either the ability or the desire to do so. We’ve consistantly destroyed or screwed up everything we’ve touched, and we are the bad guys here. We aren’t going to make Iraq better because we are trying to use and manipulate them, and they know it. They will resist everything we do, and if we succeed anyway, we’ll just hurt them more; that’s why we are there, to prey upon them.
Being well meaning doesn’t mean you will succeed in helping someone, but it’s something of a prerequisite, and we aren’t well meaning at all.
If someone breaks into a house and trashes it, the house must be put right - but the person breaking in is punished. Are you in favor of the appropriate punishment for those who trashed this particular house? Or are you in favor of paying the vandals for the repair job?
I remember Tony Blair in a press conference, standing next to Bush after declaring that he was stepping down. Blair said “our enemy is fighting us, over there” in such an honest and sincere tone that it made me realize that plenty of people actually BUY that nonsense.
Seeing our leadership as incompetent instead of evil hasn’t done much to curb my anxiety though. It might make it worse, actually.
I just watched the show on Tivo, and if you watched that and came away with that assessment, you truly are an idiot. Either that or too biased to see reality. Robbins had a nice little mantra and a louder voice. Hayes has forgotten more about the Iraq issue than Robbins and Maher together ever digested.
And I notice you didn’t offer up Robbins response to the question/comment tohim from the woman panelist inquiring why he insisted that everything was a “lie” and not simply a mistake.
You know, we really did screw up the war in Iraq. Turns out the war in Afghanistan is not going as well as we had hoped, either.
There is only one thing we can do.
We should try again in Iran, and then maybe we can get it right. If that doesn’t work, well, there are a lot of countries out there, eventually we can do it. Our dedication to freedom demands that we never give up.
As for the OP? Meh. Something like 40% still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 in some way, yet Bush’s approval rating hovers in the sub 30% range. Talk about scary.
As others have remarked, the Bush Administration chose to disband the Iraqi army.
The war was also fought with as small an army as possible and used a lot of bombing. Bombing keeps US casualties down, but also wrecks the infrastructure.
I think there are two completely separate points here.
Yes, the US has an obligation to help fix Iraq.
However keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq, whose mission is to control the country and kill anyone suspected of being a terrorist, leads to violent resentment and breeds terrorism.
If you lived in Iraq and foreign soldiers invaded, causing massive overall casualties, getting known for ghastly incidents like Abu Ghraib and also accidentally killing civilians: - wouldn’t you be tempted to listen to locals who said “let’s get rid of these foreign murdering infidels”?
Think about it - the power’s often out; it’s difficult to shop or travel; armed militias control much territory; the US is building a huge base to stay forever in Bagdad and take the oil; the US troops don’t speak your language or share your religion; there’s talk that the US will bomb Iran next.
And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men had an obligation to put Humpty Dumpty together again. But they just plain couldn’t. We had an obligation to try, but if success is not possible then at some point you have to stop pouring good blood after bad. If at first you don’t succeed, try try again. Then quit. No sense being a damned fool about it.
What, like People for the American Way or the American Civil Liberties Union?
Both sides play this game - neither side will put the word fatcat, oligarch or hippie in their organizational title, even if that is completely accurate. So that particular criticism seems a bit strange.
It all depends how you define “relationship”, now doesn’t it? He agreed with Maher’s quote of the 911 commission that they didn’t have a “collaborative operational relationship”, but he agrees with the other opinion from the commission that they had no doubt that Iraq and Al Qaeda did, in fact, have a relationship.
When he asked Robbins, repeatedly, how he explained that away, Robbins gave a nice Ralph Kramden “hemina hemina hemina”.
I think Robbins, who I actually like, came off as a partisan idiot with his fingers in his ears.
“The hippie” is dead. He was burried 40 years ago in SF (Oct '67). Had a coffin and everything. He was being turned into a marketing tool, so we had to off him. Besides, he’d be well over 30 now, and you know what you can’t do with those people!!
I’ll accept People for the American Way, but the ACLU? That’s a pretty specific description of what that group is about - American civil liberties. What do you object to, the word Union?
Where’s the misleading value laden term in American Civil Liberties Union?