Nebojsa mentioned the US govt’s hilariotic idea of sending Mongolian troops to Iraq (below). It’s worth mentioning also that a bin Laden message aired worldwide last year compared Powell & Cheney to Hulagu, so sending a token force of Mongols to Iraq will be a propaganda victory (& no doubt effective recruiting tool) for al Qaeda.
(Explanation for Americans: this is ironic because al Qaeda, not the Iraqi gov’t, attacked the USA on Sep. 11, ’01.)
John B. Judis has an article ‘Sifting Through the Rubble’ in the October 1 American Prospect that presents a “balance sheet” of US “failures” in Iraq. According to Judis, (besides generally spreading chaos) the invasion has:
– Reversed Arab efforts to reform Saudi Arabia.
– Increased US political dependence on Saudi Arabia.
– Increased the power of Saudi-led OPEC.
– Raised the price of oil for US consumers.
– Boosted the Saudi economy (up 7% this year).
Still waiting for evidence of fanatical devotion to democracy.
The Spectator’s Paul Robinson suggests another group to blame.
“Jacksonian rhetoric has spearheaded America’s recent wars. The word ‘honour’ is rarely used, but substitutes such as ‘credibility’ abound in official speeches. Nato had to bomb Yugoslavia because the ‘credibility of the alliance was at stake’. Coalition forces had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was ‘undermining the credibility of the UN’. Saddam was not a threat to the USA, but he was a living insult to its honour. Despite all the efforts of the most powerful state on earth, he had for ten years continued to survive and defy America’s wishes. For an administration driven by sentiments of honour, such an insult could not be permitted. Just as the South could not allow Lincoln to become their President, so George W. Bush could not allow Saddam to continue humiliating his country. Only war could satisfy honour.”
Interesting but unfortunately unexplored is the hormonal difference between Southerners and others mentioned in the first paragraph.
Continue reading “Blame Dixie?”