Pingles, following up an earlier comment in the "White House" thread:
basically I think that military resistance in those countries is legitimate and that as part of this attacks on US soldiers are necessary. If one doesn't prioritise US/Western interests I think it's not even a particularly extreme position; certainly, it's one that's held by a majority of Iraqis.
I'll start of by admitting what may be some bias, due to the fact that my spouse's brother, who I've known since he was three, is currently deployed there. I think I'd feel the same way if he wasn't there, but I thought I should mention it.
I think it could be argued that the US presence in Iraq— while ultimately a poorly-conceived, ill-advised, terribly executed fiasco— is somewhat different than, say, the German occupation of France, to pick an easy target.
The US went in to Iraq ostensibly to "liberate" the country and "establish democracy", and while the current administration has been loath to set a deadline for withdrawal, it has always been a stated goal to leave the country in control of itself when it is stable. Of course, we were the idiots who destabilized the whole thing so much in the first place. I believe that a majority of the populace did want Sadaam's regime overthrown, and were initially encouraged by it. The fact that it rapidly degenerated into a police occupation operation due to negligence is relevant to the current state of affairs, and to the mostly negative opinion of the US forces remaining there. The most recent Iraqi opinion polling I can find is from earlier this year (March), after the surge began, but perhaps before the impacts of it were apparent. But opinion has been consistently negative of US forces and security. Alot of data here.
The last poll where I can find of approval of attacks on US forces is from September of '06, where the overall percentage was 61 percent.
Does that mean that it is justified, or a good idea? Not necessarily. We have security agreements with the Iraqi government (puppets?), and are there with their reluctant support. As so many opinion polls tell us, just because majorities believe something, it doesn't make it true.
The war in Afghanistan is yet another matter. At the onset of military action, Afghanistan was in near total control by the Taliban, and there were many Al Qaeda forces and training camps active there and supported by the Taliban. There could, perhaps, be more reasonable justification for military action in this instance, though again, the execution can certainly be argued with— especially these cross-border strikes.
I don't particularly agree that military resistance in those countries is legitimate and that as part of this attacks on US soldiers are necessary, or that If one doesn't prioritise US/Western interests I think it's not even a particularly extreme position. US and Iraqi or Afghan interests are not always at cross-purpose. It is in everyone's interest for stability in both countries and the region, though as I said, and I think everyone would agree, we did a great deal to destabilize the region. At this point, though, it seems that total and sudden withdrawal would do more to destabilize it. Both the Afghan and Iraqi governments have a tenuous hold on their countries' security and infrastructure. I don't know that it would be best for us to go in, fuck everything up like we did and now leave it to these crippled countries to work it out.
I can't say that resistance is or is not "legitimate". It certainly is understandable. Probably most of the people engaged in it believe that they are doing it for the right reasons. Again, that doesn't make it right. The fact that we went in with high-flying justifications and rhetoric doesn't make it right, either. I don't enjoy defending the current policy in Iraq at all, and much of it I don't agree with or defend. I guess that I'm saying that while I don't agree with the US invasion of Iraq (I have mixed feelings about going in to Afghanistan, especially the way it's been done), I think at this point the only course is to do what's possible and prudent to make it stable. It's very difficult to tell what that is, and perhaps with a different administration working in a different way things may go smoother towards that, but for now I think it's the only course. While I understand the desire of people to run their own country, and I understand why they resist US forces, I don't want them to because it continues the cycle of violence. If there was no resistance or violence, we would withdraw (though I'm sure we'll keep a few bases, set up a few oil companies?). Maybe I'm wrong, and if we totally pulled out now, it would all work out for the best in the long run. I don't know, but I'm sure everyone will be happy when we withdraw. |
