Sunday, May 07, 2006

Fighting the wrong war

(American soldiers going for a swim. Children in Darfur. Baghdad Dweller)



Why do the US, Britain, Denmark and Australia fight the wrong war in Iraq? What is the fun of going to take a swim in the pool in Camp Victory, when defeat is just around the corner?

The coalition thought they'd be met with happy Iraqis throwing flowers at the soldiers. That this dream vision of the democracy and freedom crusaders' happy conquest could pop into the fool heads of neo-cons tells something about their flawed history interpretation, comparing Saddam to Hitler and believing that the inhabitants were thirsting for the Western concept of freedom. Now an Iraqi crowd is shouting 'Victory to the Mahdi army', when a British helicopter crashes in the Basra region. Where have all the flowers gone?

Why not recognize defeat and pull out the troops and devote the efforts somewhere else, where it is perhaps possible to make a virtual crusade for human rights? Does the answer lie in the Western thirst for oil? Or is it the Israel lobby and the Israeli connection, i.e. fighting for civilisation's outpost in the ME?

7 Comments:

Anonymous Constant opposition said...

Why not recognize defeat and pull out the troops and devote the efforts somewhere else, where it is perhaps possible to make a virtual crusade for human rights?

Which is where in your opinion?

Although in my opinion this war on Iraq should nefer have been started in the first place, the problem we have is that whenever the US or any other Western country gets involved in a foerign war, it's criticized (Iraq, Grenada, Kosovo, Afghanistan). Yet when the US or any other Western country doesn't get involved (Ruanda, Darfur) or does it too late (Bosnia, WW II), they're also criticized.

CO

10:17 AM  
Anonymous cosmic duck said...

It's a question of the motivation behind the intervention. When it is economic interests, it's objectionable. When it's humanitarian intervention, it's worth considering.

11:11 AM  
Anonymous Constant opposition said...

So, where do you think it would make sense to perform a humanitarian intervention?

Remember also, there's no strict divident between the two. Economic and humanitarian interests almost always go together. What varies is the percentage of the former and the latter.

CO

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Cosmic Duck said...

A humanitarian intervention should be strictly humanitarian. There should not be any ulterior motives behind it. That is difficult. Even in Darfur some great power interests are involved. It takes a strong multilateral engagement of a kind the present UN is barely capable of.

2:41 AM  
Anonymous Constant opposition said...

Cosmic Duck, why on Earth is it so hard for you to give concretism in your blog?

Like, some weeks ago, I repeatedly asked you whether you gave any more to the Palestinians instead of criticizing your government of not giving money to the terrorist-led Palestinian government. You never replied which in my opinion is an indication that you want to talk but are not willing to give a crown of your own money to support a cause you claim to be dear to you.

Now, I asked you where you think a humanitarian intervention would be in your opionion worth supporting, and you don't reply to that either.

It's extremely easy to criticize the US, Denmark, Israel, whatever, but instead of criticism it really wouldn't hurt if you presented your readers with some constructive ideas as well. Just my thought.

Of course you're not obliged to reply here but if you have concrete ideas, I'd be interested in reading them.

CO

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Cosmic Duck said...

The public money is a question of priorities. By paying taxes you pay into the public purse. By making political lobbying you try to affect the outcome of the distribution. That is the political process in a democratic society. On top of that you can also donate from your private purse, which I have also done. So far not for the Palestinians, but I would not shy away from doing so: not for arms, however. But only for humanitarian purposes.

12:59 PM  
Anonymous Constant opposition said...

OK, and sorry for sounding a little bit aggressive in my previous post. Well, now we do have in my opinion a couple of interesting news topics. Firstly, EU's continuing funding for Palestinians without giving aid via Hamas (encouraging) and then the election of the members of the new UN human rights body, with such fantastic countries as China, Cuba, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia participating (very discouraging). Developments like the latter make me very, very cynical of real multilateral cooperation on anything.

CO

11:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home