Another Country Gets It
Although we haven't directly attacked Pakistan (our "allies"), that nation and its leader certainly have been affected by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've made incursions into their territory to fight the Taliban, and we've insisted that the Pakistanis step up their own attacks on the Taliban at the border and elsewhere. That the Pakistanis are less than enchanted with the US is certainly understandable, so this editorial in Pakistan's The Nation comes as no surprise.
Sadly, for the past six years, American's response to the September 11 tragedy has been guided by a vengeful spirit of blind untrammeled ruthlessness. No doubt, the terrorist attacks at the heart of New York and Washington grievously damaged the superpower's ego. A commonsense response to the disaster would have been a dispassionate reading of the forces behind the outrage, to better understand the grievances of the attackers and address them in a serious manner, thus avoiding a recurrence of further bloodshed. But instead, the United States adopted a ham-handed, aggressive approach that, as the Bush Administration must now realize in hindsight, has provided fertile ground for swelling the ranks of extremists, besides causing human suffering of gigantic proportions.
America's own losses in Iraq alone have passed the 3,750 mark, much more than the tally of dead at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 9-11. While this death toll is in one respect remarkably low thanks largely to the poorly equipped resistance and highly protective gear the GIs are laced with, the military onslaught in Iraq is the first war in recent history in which the number of wounded has been so disproportionately high - on the order of 20,000. A fairly large number have been crippled for life. On top of that, an unjust war against an elusive target tends to provoke the firing off of weapons in desperation, hitting anyone in sight. Large-scale civilian casualties are the obvious outcome. NGOs that compile the figures of Iraqi losses record several hundred thousand dead. The destruction of land and property and the consequent homelessness of the population are well known, and the story is much the same in the Afghan arena. [Emphasis added]
Sadly, the Bush Administration doesn't realize the effects of its "ham-handed aggressive approach," or, if it does, really doesn't care. The White House, with the apparently endlessly enduring complicity of Congress, intends to keep on keeping on, adding troops, withdrawing a few as the election nears as a sop to voters, but maintaining a presence in the oil rich area until both countries are sucked dry.
And the White House continues to spin this policy as a key element in national security, even though the general in charge of Iraq admits he's not sure that's the case:
... in surprising, unscripted remarks before a Senate committee yesterday, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq said he couldn't answer the one question many people were asking: Has the current Iraq war strategy made the U.S. safer?
"I don't know, actually," Gen. Petraeus said in response to persistent questioning by Republican Senator John Warner.
He doesn't know.
Here's a quarter, General. Go buy yourself a clue.
Sadly, for the past six years, American's response to the September 11 tragedy has been guided by a vengeful spirit of blind untrammeled ruthlessness. No doubt, the terrorist attacks at the heart of New York and Washington grievously damaged the superpower's ego. A commonsense response to the disaster would have been a dispassionate reading of the forces behind the outrage, to better understand the grievances of the attackers and address them in a serious manner, thus avoiding a recurrence of further bloodshed. But instead, the United States adopted a ham-handed, aggressive approach that, as the Bush Administration must now realize in hindsight, has provided fertile ground for swelling the ranks of extremists, besides causing human suffering of gigantic proportions.
America's own losses in Iraq alone have passed the 3,750 mark, much more than the tally of dead at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 9-11. While this death toll is in one respect remarkably low thanks largely to the poorly equipped resistance and highly protective gear the GIs are laced with, the military onslaught in Iraq is the first war in recent history in which the number of wounded has been so disproportionately high - on the order of 20,000. A fairly large number have been crippled for life. On top of that, an unjust war against an elusive target tends to provoke the firing off of weapons in desperation, hitting anyone in sight. Large-scale civilian casualties are the obvious outcome. NGOs that compile the figures of Iraqi losses record several hundred thousand dead. The destruction of land and property and the consequent homelessness of the population are well known, and the story is much the same in the Afghan arena. [Emphasis added]
Sadly, the Bush Administration doesn't realize the effects of its "ham-handed aggressive approach," or, if it does, really doesn't care. The White House, with the apparently endlessly enduring complicity of Congress, intends to keep on keeping on, adding troops, withdrawing a few as the election nears as a sop to voters, but maintaining a presence in the oil rich area until both countries are sucked dry.
And the White House continues to spin this policy as a key element in national security, even though the general in charge of Iraq admits he's not sure that's the case:
... in surprising, unscripted remarks before a Senate committee yesterday, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq said he couldn't answer the one question many people were asking: Has the current Iraq war strategy made the U.S. safer?
"I don't know, actually," Gen. Petraeus said in response to persistent questioning by Republican Senator John Warner.
He doesn't know.
Here's a quarter, General. Go buy yourself a clue.
Labels: Iraq War
posted by Diane at 12:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home