For John, BLUF: George Bush doesn't deserve all the blame for the mess in Iraq. Nothing to see here; just move along.
A history professor (professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies) at Brandeis University, out in Waltham, Mass, Mr Kanan Makiya, writes in The New York Times, claiming "The Arab Spring Started in Iraq". Here are some key paragraphs:
But the greater hubris is to think that what America does or doesn’t do is all that matters. The blame for the catastrophe of post-2003 Iraq must be placed on the new Iraqi political elite. The Shiite political class, put in power by the United States, preached a politics of victimhood and leveraged the state to enrich itself. These leaders falsely identified all Sunni Iraqis with Baathists, forgetting how heavily all Iraqis, including some Shiites, were implicated in the criminality of Mr. Hussein’s regime.The OpEd writer's point is that it is not all about the United States, not in Iraq, and frankly, not anywhere.Although I always feared, and warned in 1993, that the emergence of sectarian strife was a risk after Mr. Hussein’s fall, my greatest misjudgment was in hoping that Iraq’s new leaders would act for the collective Iraqi good.
For all its bungling, the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq exposed a fundamental truth of modern Arab politics. Washington’s longstanding support for autocracy and dictatorship in the Middle East, a core principle of American foreign policy for decades, had helped stoke a deep-seated political malaise in the region that produced both Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. By 2003, American support for Arab autocrats was no longer politically sustainable.
This truth should be recognized with regard to Korea, as we enter what could be a critical part of the crisis on the Peninsula. This is not about us. Or at least not just about us. Even for the Koreas, there is a conflicting hierarchy of values. They are all Koreans, in a Kingdom going back centuries. On the other hand, I expect few from the South would wish to live as those in the North live.
Regards — Cliff
1 comment:
Or perhaps, if left to their own devices, the South might moderate the North. And why is it important that the US shove its beak into their business? All of the blather about geopolitical choke-points and access to critical resources is little more, for America, a cheap rationalization for our imperialistic attitude toward other "lesser" nation states. Put another way, with dripping sarcasm, how on earth did 18 centuries of life for other world countries happen without America? I believe that perhaps one of the most accurate if not chronically prescient labels is "the ugly American." Oh sure, we pat ourselves on the national back for our altruism, but I believe mostly to avoid facing the misery we have inflicted on countless pawns in our international game of power politics.
We said virtually the same things about Vietnam during the fifties and destroyed a large part of their population during the 60's and early 70's....ceasing only as a means of getting our countrymen back from being hostages. BTW...Vietnam seems to have survived our "intervention" much better than most of the other "objects of our concern." The vote is out on Korea....but may be cast soon. Apparently though in the midst of all of this breathless excitement, North and South ARE able to work together as evidenced by business ventures operating by both countries and employing a mix of North and South employees. One would thing that says much more than we are willing to admit.
Post a Comment