Re: American bloodlust and Iraq

"If Iraq manages to hold together in some minimal way as a fairly secular state after the U.S. leaves, it will be treated as a vindication of Bush Administration's invasion."

Well, let's forget the vague "treated as". Will it actually be a vindication of the invasion? If not, why not?

Doug

2009/2/8 Roy Griffin <roygg9@yahoo.com>

As I said, the UN strike force idea is a fantasy, but were there in place a concerted plan by the more powerful and more enlightened (& I mean that in the sense of the Englightenment) members of the UN to engage in systematic and well prioritized efforts to redeem shitholes like Haiti and the Sudan, and yes, maybe local interventions in backwaters and the ghettoes of the U.S...or France...or anywhere...I think it might be worth supporting, even it meant the use of some force & violence applied along the lines of "just war" theory...the foregoing idea could only be feasible in the context of a world greatly reduced in concern about national sovereignty--or the appearance of it.  That's one of those things where appearance and reality are pretty much the same.

On a somewhat unrelated note, from the point of view of domestic U.S. politics, what's going to happen with Iraq is this:

If Iraq manages to hold together in some minimal way as a fairly secular state after the U.S. leaves, it will be treated as a vindication of Bush Administration's invasion.  If Iraq falls apart after the U.S. leaves, there will be a "stab in the back" theory blaming the Democrats for the failure.  The Democrats should be prepared to meet the argument head on.   I doubt if they will be.

I sometimes wonder if the Democrats capable of coherent & strategic political thinking.  The Republicans certainly are, even though the content of their actual policies suck. 

R.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/