I don't know that what the author says is true, but I do like how he wrote it. Michael Hirsch at Newsweek put out an article where he discusses the tactics used to fight the insurgency in Iraq; how it turned into essentially a military smash and grab, taking all men who were of military age, and the carting off of many of them to Abu Graib, or wherever, the majority of whom were not insurgents, but many who have become so as a result of our military's actions.
He describes how President Bush took a war on terror that had allies in so many places, attacking a group of admitted murderers, between 500 and 1000 strong, and adding to it to such a point that people have difficulty defending the actions, including the muslims whom we're liberating. One such mistake is in commingling Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbollah, according to Hirsch. These groups were different from each other, had little common ground, and only one was a multi-continental threat. Now, we've put them all in the same pot, and then added so much more by deeming all who were "of age" insurgents.
Like I said, I don't know that his conclusions are right, but I like the writing, and I think he put his thoughts together well. I encourage you to click on the link and read the article for yourself.
1 comment:
I guess that, ultimately, expecting delicacy on a battlefield is impossible. By the time it gets to war and weapons, only large-scale, brute force conduct is going to end up happening -- for better or worse. When doctors talk about surgeons' preference for cutting, they'll always say, "To a hammer, everything is a nail." I guess the same analogy can be made to the forward impetus driving military forces.
Post a Comment