This rather comfortable portrait of the U.S. as a bumbling, even thoroughly incompetent giant overwhelmed by unexpected forces tearing Iraqi society apart is strikingly inaccurate:
Most of the death, destruction, and disorganization in the country has, at least in its origins, been a direct consequence of U.S. efforts to forcibly institute an economic and social revolution, while using overwhelming force to suppress resistance to this project. Certainly, the insurgency, the ethno-religious jihadists, and the criminal gangs have all contributed to the descent of Iraqi cities and towns into chaos, but their roles have been secondary and in many cases reactive. The engine of deconstruction was - and remains - the U.S.-led occupation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a pretty devistating and convincing commentary. I can't identify the original source, but it reads authoritatively and I do not dispute it. It alleges what I feared: that the US military destroyed far more than it needed to in defeating Hussein's forces, that it continues to destroy far more than it needs to in countering violent opposition, and that the rebuilding efforts exemplify the very worst sort of inefficiencies and curruption that we advocates of free enterprise and small government attribute to government-run operations.
If this is true, Bush's failure to successfully manage the invasion and its aftermath have created the conditions that undermine his efforts today. I certainly did not support an invasion that would destroy and kill more than the minimum neccessary, and that involve a big government money handout for enterprises rewarded for excessive scope and non-completion. If true, this is unforgivable, and BAD BUSINESS. A few US corporations will profit for a few years, but Iraqis will not become consumers and producers, and their economy will not benefit the US in an optimal manner.
Post a Comment