Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 449
- 48
Making the Last Mistake in Iraq
By Tony Blankley, The Washington Times
November 22, 2006
I have heard it said (by conservatives and Republicans, as well as others) that "if the Iraqis just want to murder each other, we should let them. We offered them freedom and they didn't want it." If our decision on Iraq was only about Iraq, that argument might be persuasive.
But if, as it is hard to imagine otherwise, our departure from Iraq yields civil war, chaos, war lordism and terrorist safe havens it is very likely that Iran will lurch in to harvest their advantages, Turkey will send in its army to stop an independent Kurdistan and Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other Sunni states will be sucked in to fend off Shi'ite Iran's hegemony. In that nightmare maelstrom, the 20 million barrels a day of oil shipped from the Persian Gulf and the world economy with it will be in daily risk of being cut off.
Nor is that all. Al Qaeda and other terrorists are already gloating that they have whipped the "cowardly Americans" in Iraq. We will be seen (in fact already are beginning to be seen) as a weak reed for moderate Muslims to rely on in their hearts-and-mind struggle against the radical Islamists. Osama bin Laden was right in one regard: People fear and follow the strong horse; even more so in Middle Eastern culture where restraint is seen as weakness and murder is seen as strength.
In the face of such a dreadful likelihood, the emerging Washington consensus is an exercise in self-delusion unworthy of a 5-year-old. The almost consensus Washington argument assumes that if only we will formally talk with them, Iran and Syria will volunteer to pull our chestnuts out of the fire while we start removing troops from Iraq. Such arguments exemplify the witticism that when ideas fail, words come in very handy.
for full article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061121-083639-7479r.htm
By Tony Blankley, The Washington Times
November 22, 2006
I have heard it said (by conservatives and Republicans, as well as others) that "if the Iraqis just want to murder each other, we should let them. We offered them freedom and they didn't want it." If our decision on Iraq was only about Iraq, that argument might be persuasive.
But if, as it is hard to imagine otherwise, our departure from Iraq yields civil war, chaos, war lordism and terrorist safe havens it is very likely that Iran will lurch in to harvest their advantages, Turkey will send in its army to stop an independent Kurdistan and Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other Sunni states will be sucked in to fend off Shi'ite Iran's hegemony. In that nightmare maelstrom, the 20 million barrels a day of oil shipped from the Persian Gulf and the world economy with it will be in daily risk of being cut off.
Nor is that all. Al Qaeda and other terrorists are already gloating that they have whipped the "cowardly Americans" in Iraq. We will be seen (in fact already are beginning to be seen) as a weak reed for moderate Muslims to rely on in their hearts-and-mind struggle against the radical Islamists. Osama bin Laden was right in one regard: People fear and follow the strong horse; even more so in Middle Eastern culture where restraint is seen as weakness and murder is seen as strength.
In the face of such a dreadful likelihood, the emerging Washington consensus is an exercise in self-delusion unworthy of a 5-year-old. The almost consensus Washington argument assumes that if only we will formally talk with them, Iran and Syria will volunteer to pull our chestnuts out of the fire while we start removing troops from Iraq. Such arguments exemplify the witticism that when ideas fail, words come in very handy.
for full article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061121-083639-7479r.htm
