Winds of Change.NET: Weak and Strong Horses

Via War and Piece, I see this article from the Washington Post entitled "U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq" and I think it's a very interesting read for individuals like myself who supported the invasion. Sourced at least in part to a "senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion," the article basically concludes that the US has failed to achieve its political, military, and economic goals in Iraq and are now revising those goals towards more "realistic" expectations..

"Grow into a democracy?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? Were the enormous success achieved in the January elections just window-dressing then, as Juan Cole argued (at the time? No offense, but if the end-result (goal?) of this whole adventure is that Iraq is left in the hands of yet another dictator, even a benevolent one, I'm going to have to join the chorus of people asking why we've bothered to remain as long as we have. If we were planning to install yet another Iraqi dictator, couldn't we have at least stuck with Allawi, who if nothing else has been a steadfastly reliable CIA asset?

Now maybe all of this is a trial balloon that's being put out by somebody for reasons that are as yet unknown and maybe it's not. If it isn't, then this needs to be disavowed in reasonably short order (which it won't be even if it isn't for reasons I'll explain further down) and if it is then those of us, myself included, who have repeatedly argued in favor of remaining in Iraq in order to accomplish just that based on what we assumed was the administration's goals have every reason to feel betrayed..

Winds of Change.NET: Weak and Strong Horses


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home