Posted on 05/29/2003 5:17:27 AM PDT by AbsoluteJustice
May 28 In the months preceding the intervention in Iraq, there were almost as many arguments within the regime-change constituency as there were between it and the peace camp. On both sides, indeed, some internal disagreements were subordinated to the main quarrel. The most enduring suspicion, among the Arab and Kurdish supporters of an attacking policy, was that elements within the American government would seek to keep them from harvesting an Iraq for the Iraqis victory.
HENCE THE LONG tussle between Ahmad Chalabi and the CIA, and hence also the enduring memory among Kurds of the times when they had been used and dumped in the past. It doesnt take much to bring these old suspicions back to life and the appointment of Paul Bremer, latterly of the grand old firm of Kissinger Associates, to a proconsulship could almost have been designed to revive them. To some extent, every faction in this debate has been looking down the barrel of a rifle that might backfire. If no weapons of mass destruction are ever unearthed, for example, that still doesnt mean that Iraq even attempted to comply with the terms of U.N. Resolution 1441 and it still makes nonsense of those who prophesied an apocalyptic outcome to any invasion. (This self-canceling propaganda has occurred before: Those who argued that the real reason for the removal of the Taliban was the building of a Unocal pipeline have yet to present any hard empirical evidence of such a sinister pipeline being laid, or even planned. Meanwhile, previous opponents of a U.S.-led presence in Afghanistan send me gloating e-mails every day, showing that the state of affairs in that country is far from ideal and that Washingtons interest in it is lapsing. Unless this means that they prefer Afghanistan the way it was, as some of them doubtless do, I hope they realize that they seem to be arguing for more and better intervention there, not for less.)
OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS
It is, however, possible to be consistent and somewhat contradictory. If the U.S. occupation authorities had been shooting down looters and Baathist mercenaries, they would have been portrayed as repressive and cruel. If they fail to do so, they are indicted for negligence. OK, thats what happens when you assume the responsibility for someone elses country. No self-pity is allowable on Washingtons part, and it doesnt matter that much of the criticism is itself inconsistent, or uttered in bad faith. Its not as if the occupation came as a surprise to those who had planned it. This is what makes the reversal of policy on a provisional Iraqi government made up by, for, and of Iraqis so unjustifiable. It might have been all right to come right out and say: Forget about this until we Americans are the masters of law and order and providers of facilities. But that was not what was actually said. Dates were set, meetings were convened, and deadlines were announced. This also happened, as some forget, before the intervention, when a gathering of Iraqi oppositionists in the Kurdish city of Sulaymaniyah was called off not by the participants but by Bushs envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, and not for any political reason but on the ostensible excuse of security. (Sulaymaniyah was no more or less secure, as a location, than it had been before the original invitation was issued. Indeed, it was picked in the first place because it was as near to the frontier of Saddams dominion as one could get.)
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
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.