I've written before about how some Iraq War fans have already been preparing a stab-in-the-back theory for after we eventually exit from Iraq, that we could have won if somehow the military had been "allowed to be tougher" and so forth.
The gruesome killings in Fallujah have inspired various levels of verbal wrath from the war fans. The ever-lovely Bill O'Reilly says of the city: "So let's knock this place down. ... The colonel and I are disagreeing on the tactics but we know what the final solution should be." (Quoted by Atrios; emphasis his.) Glenn Reynolds merely suggests: "Perhaps we should consider an end to infrastructure and services for a while. And maybe some Kurdish security units. ... " (03/31/04 3:35pm)
We're hearing a lot even before yesterday about not "backing down," complete with analogies to schoolyard bullies. Even Rummy used that one. Like most analogies in these matters, it's a literary flourish or a way to change the subject. But the image is interesting. Our advocates for empire and Napoleanic wars of liberation are endlessly telling us how the US is far and away the biggest and baddest power in the world. How do we wind up picturing ourselves as the victim to the Iraqi bullies? (Obviously, the American victims are very real; I'm referring to the strangeness of the bully analogy as a metaphor of the US in Iraq.)
Jeffrey Record gives a more realistic view of the dilemma of "sticking it out" in Iraq:
But the issue for the United States now is whether it can and will deliver on its promises for Iraq's future. Walking away would be catastropic. ...
Will the American people and their elected representatives go the distance in Iraq? ...
Americans don't like to cut and run, especially when their soldiers are taking fire.
But absent clear goals attainable at a reasonable cost in lives and money, the real question is what do we get by staying and losing more soldiers?
No comments:
Post a Comment