Something I do not really understand is why us liberals are so willing to support Darfur and so not willing to support Iraq. My opinion is that both places are in dire needs of help. I do not really see the difference between the two situations. But allow me to posit a guess or two as to what is going on here.
My guess is that liberals so equate Iraq with President Bush. That is almost a fair statement. He has made a royal mess of the place. And I think they think being in support of American intervention in Iraq means being in support of President Bush. I can mean this but it doesn't have to. There are ways to get around this big liberal hangup.
Obviously President Bush and his followers do not know how to handle the situation in Iraq. They never did. They did not have a plan for what to do after Saddam's government fell. I always thought that that part would be easy, especially since we have the most powerful military machine ever. What was to come after would require more nuance. A nuance that is still lacking all these years later.
But the choices available should not be limited to either "we stay in Iraq and follow President Bush's plan" or "we leave." Life is way more complicated than that. What about "staying in Iraq but not following President Bush's plan"? What about "coming up with a whole new plan"? This is also a choice. A choice that I don't ever hear people mentioning.
As to what this plan should be, I have no idea. But what about getting Iraqi experts and Iraqis themselves in a room together and not letting them leave until they have something that we can work with? Seriously, it can't be worse than the incompetents we currently have running the show.
The upshot here? Darfur definitely needs our help. But so does Iraq. We are Americans. Let us think big again.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Darfur/Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Darfur almost doesn't even exist. As cynical as it may sound, I don't think most American voters care. I mean, people are still dealing with Katrina for crying out loud.
There's no urgency with Darfur because we don't think it affects our national interests, which is sad.
By the way, why doesn't this blog have a blogroll? If you added a blogroll, you might get more people to link to your page from their blogs. And it's nice to keep all the blogs you recommend in one central location, right?
“He (Bush) has made a royal mess of the place.”
All Bush’s fault? No blame for Congressional democrats? No blame for Islamic jihad? Oversimplifications lead to misconceptions.
“Obviously President Bush and his followers do not know how to handle the situation in Iraq.”
In case you hadn’t noticed due to the extreme media blackout, we are winning over there ...
“Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted, to about one-fifth of what it was last summer ... Americans against the war are less interested now that the news is better.”
... as well as at home in the United States.
“the 3ID - the Division that took Baghdad in 2003, did a second tour in Iraq in 2005, and then bore the brunt of the surge in 2007, exceeded it’s re-enlistment goal for FY2008 half way through the year.”
The only thing obvious to me is that the democrat “leadership” chose defeatism as a political move. It helped them to win a slight majority in the House and Senate, but I expect that will change in the near future. If our current status in Iraq is an “obvious” indicator that Conservatives are blind on the subject, then what is “obvious” to you about Harry Reid declaring the war lost some time ago?
“The upshot here? Darfur definitely needs our help. But so does Iraq. We are Americans. Let us think big again.”
Agreed 100 percent. One must wonder where our progress would be today had the democrats done as you suggest from the start.
I will look into setting up a blogroll, Anthony.
Post a Comment