Awesome, the way the write put it.
There is no "victory" in Iraq, nor will there be. There is something resembling stability, but that might not last, either. There is a semblance of democracy, but that may dissolve over time, or in the next few months, into a Shi'ite dictatorship--which, if not well-run, will yield to the near-inevitable military coup. Yes, Saddam is gone--and that is a good thing. The Kurds have a greater measure of independence and don't have to live in fear of mass murder, which is a good thing, too. But Iran has been aggrandized. Its Iraqi allies, especially Muqtada Sadr's populist movement, remain a force that will play a major role--arguably one more central than ours--in shaping the future of the country. This attempt by western neo-colonialists--that is, the Bush Administration--to construct an amenable Iraq will most likely end no better than previous western attempts have. Certainly, even if something resembling democracy prevails, the U.S. invasion and occupation--the carnage and tragedy it wrought--will not be remembered fondly by Iraqis anytime soon. We will own the destruction in perpetuity; if the Iraqis manage to cobble themselves a decent society, they will see it, correctly, as an achievement of their own.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/02/obama-on-iraq/#ixzz0vdSVzTz8
The replacement notion that it was our right and responsibility to rid Iraq of a terrible dictator--after the original casus belli of weapons of mass destruction evaporated--is a neo-colonialist obscenity.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/02/obama-on-iraq/#ixzz0vdSibELo
The essential principle is immutable: We should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/02/obama-on-iraq/#ixzz0vdSzeBYV