If you prefer to skip, this is your warning!
I suppose it's relatively easy for me to oppose the war in Iraq. I have no first-hand governing or military experience. I try to get my information from multiple sources, but of course it's all second-hand and put through filters that both sides say they don't use. And as much as I still believe we had no business being in Iraq in the first place, I would not want to be in the shoes of the person/s responsible for deciding what the hell we do now.
Do we stay or go? If we stay, do we keep the same level of troops as we have now? Leave only a shell? Or send in more to crush the insurgency? Is this a beast that simply grows two more heads for every one cut off? Will Iraq remain as one country, or divide three ways?
And here in the US, we have one side saying we have to stay because otherwise the sacrifices made by so many would have been in vain. This is a circular argument that, to me, makes no sense. But then neither does the opposing argument. We can't really leave now, can we? We invaded and blew the lid off these festering tensions. Don't we now have an obligation to the people who were promised a democracy, an end to the long nightmare of Sadaam?
So who is going to stop the killing? It's not like this is a Shiite army against a Sunni army. They're killing children. The women. The elderly. And some in unspeakable ways. It's all well and good to say the Iraqi people need to come together for the sake of their country, but there are thousands of years of religious, cultural and psychological differences on one side of the scale and on the other, a country whose current form is not yet 100 years old.
What would the General do? General Powell, that is. Anyone think he might want his old job back? Probably not, but really, WWtGD? And the medal that "we" give to Rumsfeld, how big is that going to be?
UPDATE 4/3/06: Saw this great mark twain quote today: "It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not to deserve them."
No comments:
Post a Comment