I agree, but only in concept.
There are too many issues wrapped up in bombing Baghdad for me to just jump on board with that.
Consider this: I visited a Baghdad Blogger's site (I'll see if I can fine the URL and post it), and as much as he ADMITTED to the precision of the US bombing, and was IMPRESSED by it, he was angry because even precision bombing creates a mess. As a result, he BLAMES the US for bombing civilian areas, by indirect correlation.
Muslims can't stand the US, Arabs are very tepid about the US in general, and Arab Muslims are virulently Anti-US. Winning this war is going to be more about how well we treat Arabs, in general, than how quickly we destroy a despotic regime.
Unfortunately, convincing Arabs that we treat them well is not an easy thing to do. We abide by the Geneva Conventions, and they scoff at the Geneva Conventions. This creates a Catch-22. We can win, and due to our humanitarian nature, Arabs consider us evil, "weak", but respect our power. If we win using the same brutality that Saddam employs, Arabs consider us evil, pure and simple.
Simply winning, therefore, will not put us in a position to win the peace. Winning using humantarian methods, makes the job difficult, but not impossible. People I know returning from Afghanistan point out that the Afghanis, once strongly Anti-US, are now increasingly pro-US. Why? Because while mistakes were made, we make reparations. In addition, after the Afghan war ended, we have imposed the first peace the Afghan people have known in 25 years.
Finally, they have a chance to get on with life. That counts for alot. If we can do the same thing in Iraq, it won't take long for other Mid East countries to either choose to continually attack us...or join us. I suspect most will opt for the latter. |
