|
I have an old friend from high school who is stationed in Baghdad attached to the embassy as a FSO. Can't really tell what the guy's politics are, but he posted an article about us getting out of Iraq in 2011,and I replied "Sweet!". His comment was "What will Obama or McCain do? Bush is giving them plenty of options -- except for one. He's "binding" the next President to withdraw combat forces from Iraq. ". I detected a bit of the 'ol White Man's Burden in there, so I retorted with:
"Well, Bush put our foreign policy in a bind when he chose to use the spread of "democracy" and "freedom" as a casus belli once WMD's weren't found. Kind of hard to argue with a sovereign government when they want you out of the country. Freedom for Iraq means less flexibility for us, but according to the Bush administration, the freedom to kick us out was the whole point. Or was it?"
and this was his reply:
"Americans like to spread liberal Wilsonian democracy. Freedom is good, right? We don't like to wage war for some tainted reason including vital US interests. We want to be the good guys. We prefer to wage war for someone else's freedom -- for the other guys' national interests. Does that sound absurd?"
Am I missing something here? We've established a democracy in Iraq,and the Iraqis are exercising their freedom by kicking us the hell out. This guy's attitude is, who gives a shit what the Iraqis say or want. We should stay as long as we like, but remember, we're the good guys. WTF? I'm sensing a little cognitive dissonance here, but I wanted to get a second opinion cuz this guy is Harvard educated.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(919 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
