|
RichLP -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/9/2008 9:05:37 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcp
quote:
ORIGINAL: RichLP
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcp
Well, they had recruiting tools before we engaged Iraq. They don't like our support of Israel, they don't like the fact that their gov'ts capitulate, ally, or invite us to stage military operations on 'holy ground'. Old allies can become enemies from other foreign actions/or lack of action. But again these wars are waged hopefully taking into account the risks of collateral damage. You who think our strategies (on top of our principles) are bad, we may never know, but maybe time will tell. [I add we may never know, cause some could always argue for instance that we could've ignored WW2 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor and just let the chips fall. Maybe Germans/Japanese would've gotten tired of world domination or maybe they would've liberalized the world under a global Deutsche government.]
But our invasion of Iraq was seen as an attack on Muslim land.
As for WW2, Japan, Germany... terrible... just TERRIBLE comparisons, none of which are applicable to either Iraq or Al-Qaeda (which were never allies of each other).
the comparisons with WW2 was to give an extreme example to which some I have argued with have gone- 'we could have just waited it out'. So some could definitely assume that not dealing with the Iraq/Iran conflict, the Kuwait attack or more recently Afghanistan/Iraq/Somalia, etc will be the best approach. So, I wasn't justifying going into Iraq with our involvement in WW2.
Was attacking the Taliban an attack on muslim land? Was driving Saddam out of Kuwait an attack on Muslim land? If this is about Muslim lands, then what about the secular tag Iraq had under Saddam? We have to live with some of their 'recruitment' motivations (this is their form of psych warfare) if we must address greater risks.
The comparisons are terrible PERIOD.
Germany and Japan? Let's see.
NAZI GERMANY: a one-party government with unmistakably aggressive intentions. They attacked Poland, France, and bombed Great Britain. They unilaterally declared war on the United States.
IMPERIAL JAPAN: a militaristic, imperialistic nation-state that had embarked on aggressive war in Asia long before the outbreak of hostilities in Europe. They took US-held Filipino territory and attacked Pearl Harbor.
AL-QAEDA: an amorphous, transnational, decentralized, non-state entity which uses a mix of radical religious ideology and hatred to foster violent enmity against those it sees as infidels and desecrators of Muslim land.
Overthrowing the Taliban had a clear strategic and tactical value: the deposition of a government which was openly harboring AQ. Those who supported the takedown of Hussein should have favored this because the Taliban was repressive as well. But there was criticism about our invasion of Afghanistan from Muslims, even though many of them sympathized with us about 9/11 and understood why we were going in - which in itself is a blow to the belief all Muslims are the same, or that all Muslims sympathize with Salafi thought.
And as for Iraq: Saddam Hussein did build a secular government, but Iraq was and is largely a Muslim country, and since the rationale for attacking Iraq was far flimsier than any arguments we ever gave for the offensive on Afghanistan, the animus from the Muslim world was consequently - and inevitably - much greater.
|
|
|
|