due to the contempt we have earned with our weak behavior in the past 10 years.<<
I believe you are overstating the case, Nadine. I do not believe we have earned any such thing.
Furthermore, though one might make the case that failing to nail Saddam & the Republican Guard was a strategic error, our show of force and high rate of success there does not define 'weak' very well at all.
Where else? Somalia? We sent in peacekeepers who proved to be vulnerable because of either poor intelligence or leadership that did not train them properly as to what should be expected. They weren't set up to be an offensive force. They got ambushed, and in rescuing their own, and retreating to safety, they managed to outkill the enemy by a huge lopsided ratio. This made the case that somebody bungled, but again, our behavior was not weak. It was construed as weak by a group of people lacking 8th grade educations, who'd love to fight us again. They can't be educated out of their flawed belief; they can be killed. Proving what? We bad. What is the strategic gain? None, unless there is an Al Qaida network requiring a takedown.
Beirut? 18 years ago? Outside of your time frame.
Which leaves Israel/Palestine. You are suggesting our behavior was weak because we tried to broker peace. Just as a majority of Israelis wanted. Just as the Palestinians claimed to want. Just as regional neighbors hoped could be obtained.
Trying for peace against long odds is a moral bravery. Failure is risked and criticism is invited. Being principled can be weak, if one is unwilling to yield principle to spare death and destruction. Otherwise the pursuit of peace is an ethical and sometimes effective option that does not denote weakness at all.
What's next? Shall we compare the 'appeasement' of Arafat with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler?
I do not believe our behavior was weak. More importantly, we earned and 'deserved' nothing. If you disagree, make your case. |
