Posted on 11/22/2006 6:31:33 AM PST by shrinkermd
MANY AMERICANS have been wondering why so many Iraqis are willing to fight for militias and terrorist groups but not for the American-backed government. Look at it from their perspective. Would you stake your life on a regime whose existence depends on Washington's continuing support? Given our long, shameful record of leaving allies in the lurch, that has never seemed to be a smart bet.
We have been betraying friends since our first overseas conflict, against the Barbary pirates who captured ships off the African coast and enslaved their crews...
Something similar could have been said about U.S. conduct after World War I. President Wilson was the leading champion of "national self-determination" at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, yet the U.S. did nothing to safeguard the states he helped midwife...
Postwar U.S. administrations compounded this duplicity when they urged the "captive" peoples behind the Iron Curtain to seek their freedom and yet did nothing to help the East Germans in their 1953 uprising, the Hungarians in 1956 or the Czechs in 1968...
Cuban anti-communists fared just as poorly at American hands. On April 17, 1961, 1,500 exiles organized by the CIA landed at the Bay of Pigs. The Cuban army counterattacked, and the rebels were killed or captured. The outcome might have been different if the U.S. had been willing to provide air cover...
In the following years, the U.S. waged a massive war to stop a communist takeover of South Vietnam. By 1973, we had tired of the conflict, and the South Vietnamese were left to fend for themselves...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Can't really argue with the above. The difference between Scowcroft/Kissinger "realism" and cowardice is how you look at it.
Total BS.
You can think of numerous times where we came to the rescue and succeeded if you really want to.
Interesting perspective. The reufusal to support South Vietnam against the communists after we left in 1973 was a low point in our nations history. I can understnad tiring of war after losing so many, but to deny them the weapons to defend themselves was crap.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Bump.
Yes, you can, but by the same token, you cannot deny the facts stated in the column. If I were head of a foreign country, I'd view any US promises with suspicion--yes, THIS President can be trusted, but from their point of view, there's no telling when the next Carter, Clinton, or Heaven help us, Kerry will take over for 4-8 years.
Hardly. We have sold people out time and time again and it is the democrats who do it although the Bush 41 team sold out the Kurds and Shia by telling them to rise up and overthrow Saddam then slinking off and allowing them to be slaughtered.
MANY AMERICANS have been wondering why so many Iraqis are willing to fight for militias and terrorist groups but not for the American-backed government. Look at it from their perspective.
They're fighting for what they believe in - radical Islam, Sunni tribalism, against the foreigner, whatever - not because they think the U.S. is an unreliable ally. If the U.S. stays for 20 years they'll still be fighting in 20 years. Only the Iraqis can stabilize the country, and probably only Saddam style.
We don't have a perfect track record, but name me a nation that does.
Overall, the Yanks have saved the day time and time again.
Funny how every one of those cut-and-run strategies cited all came from Democrat presidents and/or as a result of liberal marches and media attention... yet that little fact doesn't get mentioned. Hm.
The cold war examples are much less clean cut than Boot simplistically suggests. You recall that the Soviets had nukes? Was the US was going to start another global war when large numbers of eastern europeans weren't going to do their part - which frankly would have been to die in huge numbers while in rebellion?
Not every people can handle democracy. I sometimes wonder if we can. You must exercise both courage and restraint (which is why we ended up with a constitutional republic and not mob rule like in the French Revolution). I have no doubt that many Iraquis have the qualities needed. The question is are there enough? Given the nature of arab culture (tribalism) and the characteristics of islam (too many negative ones to enumerate), probably not. That said, I think its time to undo the mistake the Brits made and partition Iraq. It was designed to be unstable when the Kurds were mixed with Sunni and Shia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.