4 Comments:

I've been reading one of Greg Palast's books that spends some time discussing the reasons for invading Iraq. It's seductive in its simplicity -- much like Noam Chomsky, I suppose.

Without endorsing any of Palast's reporting, my question is this: Was there ever any chance of a non-ruined state in Iraq?

By  Hammer, at 1:11 PM  

I can only assume you mean that question to apply only AFTER our invasion. Because it was not a ruined state before we invaded. There are plenty of reasons to not like Iraq prior to our (latest) involvement but if it is true, as many people smarter about this stuff than I am have said, that failed states are a greater danger to world stability than are rogue regimes then we have done our cause tremendous harm in the last 6 years.

By  Jambo, at 5:32 PM  

Troy's decision to accept the Horse, Napoleon's decision to invade Russia, Hitler's decision to invade Russia, Tojo's decision to attack Pearl harbor, Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
All on a par.

By  Anonymous, at 2:38 PM  

That might be taking it a BIT far, but your point is well taken. Iraq is more like our attack on VietNam. We will leave without victory and with much damaged credibility and prestige in the world (and perhaps an equally damaged military) but we will not be a defeated nation in the sense that those others were. However, when the time comes that the US is a diminished power and no longer a "great" nation on the world stage I think historians will mark the start of that decline with W's needless and disastrous war in Iraq.

By  Jambo, at 6:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home