SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: LindyBill12/5/2005 5:22:53 AM
   of 793938
 
False Options

By Matthew Yglesias

I'm glad to see The Washington Post editorial page taking note of Iraq's death squads, but I don't think they're point-of-view on this makes any real sense. If you're committed, as the Post is, to staying in Iraq indefinitely, then the Rumsfeld view (in essence, "stuff happens") is the only viable one to take. The leaders actors in the burgeoning dirty war in Mesopotamia just are Iraq's leading political parties. The Bush administration can't make it not be the case that the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army aren't a solid foundation onto which to build a liberal democracy. Nor can they make it not be the case that these are extremely powerful forces in Iraqi society.

What they could do is make it not be the case that over 100,000 American soldiers are in Iraq working for the Iraqi government. But if you think, as the Post does, that we need to remain committed to the mission of using the American military to help establish the Iraqi government's control over the country, then that's the mission you're committed to, death squads and all. The dirty war is the war. We can fight it, or we can not fight it, but neither Bush nor Rumsfeld nor Fred Hiatt can snap his fingers and make the war something it isn't.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext