|
Remove the affront, apologize, rebuild, and by and by tempers will calm enough for Iraq to have some chance of determining its own destiny.
The affront is the occupation, plain and simple. The affront is the US troops who continue to predictably retreat more and more into "force protection mode" as they storm houses, arrest Iraqis and hold them without cause, and kill innocent Iraqis who are "caught in the crossfire". With this kind of presence (by the US) in the region right now, does it not then stand to reason that even if the US were to try to change approach within Iraq, they would still be viewed as a hostile occupation force by increasing numbers of Iraqis?
but I don't agree that we should just go ahead and let them kill each other if they want to.
I think you may have misread this comment without the context of the entire discussion to which I had linked. The other poster I was corresponding with on this matter had said basically that the Iraqis would undoubtedly degenerate into civil war if it were not for the US presence, and that WE had to remain in order to provide stability for THEM. My response was somewhat pithy, but it was essentially to the effect that if it's inevitable that Iraqis are going to kill each other (which he seemed to be proposing), then that bloodshed might as well be applied toward the purpose of eventually achieving a self-ruling Iraq rather than creating a puppet state of the US.
Personally, I don't believe that the entire country will degenerate into bloodshed and civil war -- there were too many instances of civil society coming into being, especially in the Shia south, immediately following the overthrow of Saddam. Amazingly, much of this phenomenon was directly associated with both the followers of al-Sistani AND al-Sadr.
Just because they're fighting doesn't mean they'll keep fighting forever, if someone intervenes helpfully. And by "helpfully" I don't mean imperialistically or with an eye toward stealing oil money for Halliburton. Credibility requires clean hands.
Exactly my point as to why the presence of US troops are the biggest impediment toward "helpful" intervention or engagement. So long as those troops remain, there can be no "clean hands". Stability will occur only when the US troops are removed. The damage that has been done to US credibility among increasing numbers of Iraqis (many of whom supported the overthrow of Saddam) is pretty much irreversible, so long as we remain.
|