The Consequences of Failure in Iraq
"What would be the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq? Trying to wrap one's mind around the ramifications of a failed Iraq--of an enormous, quite possibly genocidal, Sunni-Shiite clash exploding around American convoys fleeing south--is daunting. In part, this is why few have spent much time talking about what might happen to Iraq, the region, and the United States if the government in Baghdad and its army collapsed into Sunni and Shiite militias waging a battle to the death. Among its many omissions, the Iraq Study Group's stillborn report lacked any sustained description of the probable and possible consequences of a shattered Iraq." Continue reading....
posted by HeavyHanded at
7:17 PM
3 Comments:
Great article, but as this contributor previously posted, the real reason people are not talking about the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq is not because it is 'daunting', which it clearly is, but is because the MSM, which still controls the public dialogue in this country, has never asked that question of those who advocate our withdrawal.
Assume whatever motive you will to the MSM's inaction in this regard, from abject incompetence to blatant political bias, but it remains an absolutely inexcusable dereliction of their responsibility to our right to a free press.
By
Anonymous, at 9:34 AM
Yeh, I thought it was a fine article as well.
While I believe as you do, that the 'dinosaur media' controls the dialogue; and it therefore 'shapes our nation' probably more so than at any time in our nation's history, I still see it as a flaw in our character that we cannot keep our eye on the ball.
That is where 'evil' always seemingly has the upper hand over 'good.' They never give up, and they never go away.
'Good' gets tired of fighting. You never hear of Mullah Omar, or Bin Laden or Ahmadinejad, or the Mullahs of Iran talking of giving up.
'Good' always loses in the game of appeasement or in the art of negotiation. This is by definition.
The three reasons you give for the old media's motives for not asking the 'what if' question on a U.S. military withdrawal, I think are all valid. I would rank abject incompetence as #3; political bias #2; and absolute inexcusable dereliction of responsibility (AS IN WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE) the number one reason for this.
This is especially true in regards to the New York Times, the LA Times, Washington Post, etc. They certainly are not immune to incompetence, but they are the 'news setters.'
'Lesser' papers just follow their lead due more to incompetence and laziness. The 'big boys' definitely have an agenda.
Defining what is political bias and what is dereliction on their part may be difficult in many cases as they may be intrinsically linked.
By
HeavyHanded, at 5:36 PM
Yes, and here we are, the day after the Presidents speech on his current approach to Iraq, with Democrats and Republicans alike castigating him and it and still not one of these critics has been asked 'the question', i.e. “what do the Presidents critics believe will happen as a consequence if we withdraw from Iraq before Iraq is capable of defending itself?”.
Every point the critics have previously floated was addressed in the Presidents speech. More troops?, less troops?, what went wrong?, what mistakes were made and who made them?, how can we get the Iraqi’s more engaged in their own defense?, why will this new plan succeed when previous plans have failed?, what do we expect from others in the region and how do we incent them to do it?, where is the support for the ‘insurgents’ coming from and what do we proposed to do about it?.
They were all covered and still the critics are allowed to criticize as though none of them were, without offering any plan of their own and without addressing what the results will be if their unarticulated plan is followed.
By
Anonymous, at 9:39 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home