Saturday, December 09, 2006

Who Is Doing What To "Foment Hatred?"

In my opinion, "fomenting hatred" is in the eye of the beholder. W and his pals suggest he is "spreading freedom," and it's the "terrorists, sectarianist, sadamist, and whatever sundry -ists you can tack a suffix on to.
The violence is not ... an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists -- al Qaeda with [the] Sunni insurgents, [and Iran with] Shia militia -- to foment hatred and thus throttle at birth the possibility of non-sectarian democracy.
Certainly, those on the other side of our rifles can make the same case against us. This is the fundamental problem of using violence to subdue violence - it begets more violence. The painful lessons are unfolding before us in Iraq.

Of course, just like the W, Rove and Co. issue signing statements affixing parameters around laws they have a distaste for, they are only articulating the parts of the Iraq Study Group's report that is politically advantageous.
If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.
Certainly that is a rather wild predictive statement isn't it - this from an administration that suggest it is not up to prognosticating or discussing hypothetical situations. By the way, it pretty much looks like Iraq is in chaos while we are there, could it get worse? Sure, but will it most certainly gets worse?

What would be more troublesome would be to suggest that perhaps the opposite outcome is possible as well - that if we leave, might it also have a chance to go toward peacefulness? Wouldn't that outcome be like a giant egg on the face of the W, Rove and Co and their supposedly powerful pack of allies?


Kvatch said...

If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

This statement is incredibly disingenuous. Iraq is is chaos, and as you point out our leaving will not change that. The situation may get worse. It may improve when the American yoke has been removed.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers hate definitions: define Iraq.

There is no 'Iraq.' Iraq is a state of mind in Washington. It's not a state in the Middle East.

Would one talk of the USA as a nation were Red and Blue states at war with each other? Iraq is just a convenient fiction used to describe a place in the sand where US troops go to give a nebulous 'other' target practice. We would fight the 'other' if we knew who they were.

Iraq is not a government. A government has a monopoly on violence in a given area. That isn't Iraq.

Iraq is not a people. Iraq is a collection of tribes and religions, Sunnis who are sure they're smarter than Shia, and Kurds also Sunni and the largest language group in the world not to have their own country.

Iraq just fills a void in Washington thinking with another void. When a talking head, in or out of government, talks about 'Iraq,' substitute the word 'Sand.' Sand is what they're talking about. Iraq does not exist.