Iraq's fig leaf constitution

[yesthattom]

Who lost Iraq? Someday, as a fragmented Iraq spirals further into religious madness, terrorism and civil war, there will be a bipartisan inquiry into this blundering intrusion into another people's history.

The crucial question will be why a "preemptive" American invasion — which has led to the deaths of nearly 2,000 Americans, roughly 10 times as many Iraqis, the expenditure of about $200 billion and incalculable damage to the United States' global reputation — has had exactly the opposite effect predicted by its neoconservative sponsors. No amount of crowing over a fig leaf Iraqi constitution by President Bush can hide the fact that the hand of the region's autocrats, theocrats and terrorists is stronger than ever.

"The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state," said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds. And, he could have added, a pro-Iranian state that will be repressive and unstable.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer30aug30,1,7287462.column?track=mostemailedlink
(Registration Required... FireFox users can use BugMeNot)

Comments

[pure-agnostic.livejournal.com]

The crucial question will be why a "preemptive" American invasion
Yes, that would be the crucial question for a bipartisan inquiry, or Congressional committee to ask. But I would bet 10-to-1 against that the Republicans will not ask that question.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

The Iranians have problems of their own, and it's not clear that their repressive state is sustainable. The Iran-Iraq war killed off nearly all the males of ages between about 18 and 60 during that decade, leaving lots of young. The young keep pressing for more freedom from the strictures of Sharia, and the old clerics are all going to die off anyway ...

I bet you see Iran come out of its long Islamic nightmare within 15 years because of the demographics.

Watching what they do, not what they say.

[marmota.livejournal.com]

has had exactly the opposite effect predicted by its neoconservative sponsors

Has it, though? How many of them have lost money over it?

[tim1965.livejournal.com]

Compare and contrast these two statements:

"The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state," said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds. And, he could have added, a pro-Iranian state that will be repressive and unstable."

"The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem to replace him with a pro-American president," said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam and an advisor to the Vietnamese Catholics. And, he could have added, a pro-American South Vietnamese state that will be repressive and unstable."



No, I can't see any difference either.