Have you guys ever gone back and read some of what we've written here?
Look, I'm not saying we've beat Shakespeare or Hemingway with our collective intellectual vomit... but some of it is damn good, and a very little bit has even been correct.
I'm still perusing 2010's posts, and I'm enjoying the hell out of it.
Friday, February 20, 2015
"Resuscitation" defined...
Resuscitate: verb re-sus-ci-tate "to bring back to a conscious or active state again"
F Ryan recently sent a text asking the question: "If Saddam were still in power, does ISIS happen?"
If that isn't a Bund-quality conversation starter, I don't know what is. So, here goes...
My reply was (and still is) absolutely not. The power vacuum left by Saddam's removal was the ONLY means by which ISIS (and all its previous incarnations) could take hold in a region as a real political player. F Ryan posited that the de-Ba'athificantion of Iraqi infrastructure (including the Army) was what provided the means for the failure of the post-US-led Iraqi government. I can't agree more, but the question (in my opinion) is deeper still... can the blame for ISIS really be placed on US intervention in Iraq?
ISIS, and its al-Qaeda roots, go back to the very first days of US intervention in Afghanistan after 9/11. al-Qaeda traces its hatred of the US and the West back to the early 90's and the US-led removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
To try and "resuscitate" this forum, I'm asking where do we draw the line between actual "interventionism" for the sake of short-term gains and genuine "defensive" actions wherein the US is spending time, money and blood to defend herself or her actual allies from catastrophic harm?
Can anyone think of a more inflammatory topic to kick-start this forum?
In the last year (about the time this blog started to s&!t the bed), I have come to the conclusion that US intervention in the region (i.e. Middle East) has done next to NOTHING to make the US safer since 1991. I take '91 as the start point because I think the liberation of Kuwait was the last 100% legitimate action the US has taken that wouldn't be considered "self defense". I do put the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the category of "self defense", since they had ample opportunity to distance themselves from al Qaeda prior to the invasion in 2001. US intervention in Iraq (beginning in 2003), Syria, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Yemen have all made the situation worse and done NOTHING to increase US security either regionally or domestically.
If "boots on the ground" or "total war footing" are the ONLY way to bring about western-style stability in the region, do we have the a) means to achieve it and b) right (moral/legal/ethical) to attempt it? When does a nation/state need to take responsibility for its own stability?
F Ryan recently sent a text asking the question: "If Saddam were still in power, does ISIS happen?"
If that isn't a Bund-quality conversation starter, I don't know what is. So, here goes...
My reply was (and still is) absolutely not. The power vacuum left by Saddam's removal was the ONLY means by which ISIS (and all its previous incarnations) could take hold in a region as a real political player. F Ryan posited that the de-Ba'athificantion of Iraqi infrastructure (including the Army) was what provided the means for the failure of the post-US-led Iraqi government. I can't agree more, but the question (in my opinion) is deeper still... can the blame for ISIS really be placed on US intervention in Iraq?
ISIS, and its al-Qaeda roots, go back to the very first days of US intervention in Afghanistan after 9/11. al-Qaeda traces its hatred of the US and the West back to the early 90's and the US-led removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
To try and "resuscitate" this forum, I'm asking where do we draw the line between actual "interventionism" for the sake of short-term gains and genuine "defensive" actions wherein the US is spending time, money and blood to defend herself or her actual allies from catastrophic harm?
Can anyone think of a more inflammatory topic to kick-start this forum?
In the last year (about the time this blog started to s&!t the bed), I have come to the conclusion that US intervention in the region (i.e. Middle East) has done next to NOTHING to make the US safer since 1991. I take '91 as the start point because I think the liberation of Kuwait was the last 100% legitimate action the US has taken that wouldn't be considered "self defense". I do put the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the category of "self defense", since they had ample opportunity to distance themselves from al Qaeda prior to the invasion in 2001. US intervention in Iraq (beginning in 2003), Syria, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Yemen have all made the situation worse and done NOTHING to increase US security either regionally or domestically.
If "boots on the ground" or "total war footing" are the ONLY way to bring about western-style stability in the region, do we have the a) means to achieve it and b) right (moral/legal/ethical) to attempt it? When does a nation/state need to take responsibility for its own stability?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
