James Wolcott suggests the following be posed to all those pols and pundits who wring their hands and say that withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, "What happens if the US stays--and loses? How prepared are you to deal with that eventuality?"
Wolcott quotes an article discussing the USAF's stepped-up campaign to bomb Iraq's bridges, which is redolent of the old Vietnam phrase "destroy the village in order to save it." He then quotes another article discussing the current policy of arming certain Sunni groups to help fight the insurgency. If that's not picking sides in a civil war, what is it?
Even if a civil war between the Sunnis, the Shi'a, and the Kurds takes place, to whom is the greater obligation? The people whose country we invaded for specious reasons, or the soldiers we've put into an impossible situation? The greater good for the greater number is all very well, but when does one decide that the end no longer justifies the means?
Posted by Linkmeister at June 14, 2007 10:24 AM | TrackBack