I'd told myself I wasn't going to write about Iraq.
Honest.
I'd spent over three years thinking about the place, blogging, searching for answers...
And one of the reasons I stopped was that I was beginning to feel like an armchair quarterback. I wasn't the one out there making the call. And it started to feel silly to think my posts would make much of a difference. (And if I'm wrong, and you want to read more from me, then please put a little something in the tip jar I've added. This is not my full time job and it'd be nice to know my hobby means something.)
Despite my original inclination, I decided to type up a blog post anyway. There are a lot of good articles out there discussing the situation. Some not so good ones as well. I think you all can read them the same as I can. What I would like to point out is that the people arguing for intervention seem to believe they are playing a game like risk. Move one colored square here, take this spot, try to keep a Shiite crescent from developing or war between Saudis and Iranians, or what-have-you.
Very realpolitik. Very strategic.
Only thing missing is this - people are not little colored squares that you can move around at will.
The Iraqis deserve to be more than just victims of some geopolitical upheaval.
And for Americans, the past decade has left practically NO appetite for further involvement.
I haven't heard a single argument from the ones suggesting involvement that addresses the fact that some of the exact same thinking has left us weaker as a nation.
We have less credibility. Less capacity to exert our influence. Less support from our own people.
If we were to get involved, how do we know we won't just overreact, then give up and pull out and wind up even worse off than before? Or underreact, do too little, and look even weaker?
Why won't we wind up in the same situation seven years later?
Honest.
I'd spent over three years thinking about the place, blogging, searching for answers...
And one of the reasons I stopped was that I was beginning to feel like an armchair quarterback. I wasn't the one out there making the call. And it started to feel silly to think my posts would make much of a difference. (And if I'm wrong, and you want to read more from me, then please put a little something in the tip jar I've added. This is not my full time job and it'd be nice to know my hobby means something.)
Despite my original inclination, I decided to type up a blog post anyway. There are a lot of good articles out there discussing the situation. Some not so good ones as well. I think you all can read them the same as I can. What I would like to point out is that the people arguing for intervention seem to believe they are playing a game like risk. Move one colored square here, take this spot, try to keep a Shiite crescent from developing or war between Saudis and Iranians, or what-have-you.
Very realpolitik. Very strategic.
Only thing missing is this - people are not little colored squares that you can move around at will.
The Iraqis deserve to be more than just victims of some geopolitical upheaval.
And for Americans, the past decade has left practically NO appetite for further involvement.
I haven't heard a single argument from the ones suggesting involvement that addresses the fact that some of the exact same thinking has left us weaker as a nation.
We have less credibility. Less capacity to exert our influence. Less support from our own people.
If we were to get involved, how do we know we won't just overreact, then give up and pull out and wind up even worse off than before? Or underreact, do too little, and look even weaker?
Why won't we wind up in the same situation seven years later?
No comments:
Post a Comment