Finally! I have been reading excerpts but it took me almost the entire day to work my way down to this message.
JDG wrote: > Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. > > The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the > deaths currently occuring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable > proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occuring largely as > a result of US military action, or else as a result of an > anti-US insurgency in > Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past > week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of > violence in Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various > Iraqi factions jockey for position in the post-Saddam order. Well, actually it is more than that. That sentence well describes what was happening earlier. Now we have a civil war. And that is infinitely bloodier than any jockeying-for-position. And as for the blame, John, well, consider this: In 1947, India was partitioned. We asked for the partition, we agreed to it, and it was carried out. But a lot still blame the British for the Partition, and insist that they could have done more, not only to prevent it but also to ensure that it was less violent. Because they were the ones with the power, and they were the ones who could have done it. Now Iraqis didn't ask for the invasion. They didn't ask for an occupation. And they certainly didn't ask for a bungled occupation where no attempts were ever made to see if the secular nature of the Iraqi state could survive Saddam's downfall. They also didn't ask for a govt so enfeebled by a lack of decent police and army that it cannot maintain order within its own borders. All these things were decided by the Coalition. So I am not sure why you think that the responsibility for enabling this sectarian madness shouldn't fall on the Coalition too. > In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then > the alternative would be to support the prolonged the > perpetuation of Saddam Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a > means of holding the country > together. Yes, I know you think that way. But I don't and I have never advocated that Saddam should have carried on just so Iraq doesn't break up. It is not an 'either-or' situation, John. You don't need a genocidal maniac as a dictator to keep a country together. A strong efficient govt does the trick. Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think > that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if > the regime of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed > *without* 150,000+ US troops on the ground trying to help > keep the peace... Right after you explain why you assume I think that. :) Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
