Thursday, June 29, 2006
Some Blunt Truth About Iraq
From "Karl Northman" in Salon's discussion forum Table Talk:
There's some stuff that I'd really appreciate the media making clear, because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. First - we are no longer part of the solution in Iraq. And as we said many years ago, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Second - one way or another, sooner or later, we will be leaving and there (hopefully) will become some sort of Iraqi national government which does not have to salute when they get emails from PNAC. Third - this government will have to issue amnesties to large numbers of fighters. They may do it explicitly and publicly and announce it, or it may just be an internal policy that becomes widely known, that no prosecutions will ever be taken against people who only did this. Look at the aftermath of WWII - I know of no country occupied by the Nazis that ever prosecuted its own people, even if they were just active civilians, for killing German troops. If memory serves, there were prosecutions against people who killed collaborators with the Nazis, but killing a collaborator was roughly like killing your neighbors dog, in terms of criminal liability. Bottom line? There will never be a stable government in Iraq that does not issue an amnesty against people who killed (at least, lets say, after June, 2004) American military personnel. Sure, random American civilians, that's different. Innocent bystanders, that's different. But American military - killing American military is simply ordinary partisan warfare against an occupying army. We don't like this. You may damage your re-election chances by mentioning it, or acknowledging it. Probably will. But it's the flat truth. If we really want an independent, self-sustaining, Iraqi government, than we simply have to admit that one way or another, they will give an amnesty to people who merely attacked our troops. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand what the situation is.I don't expect the media to make this clear, because, as Upton Sinclair said, "It's impossible to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it." In spite of their high-flown idealistic-sounding talk, the Busheviks don't want a real government in Iraq. They want the appearance of democracy (prime minister and a cabinet, photogenic elections) as camouflage for their control of the country. Bush will never tolerate the "Iraqi government" doing anything Bush doesn't like, and the media won't take on the tough job of telling us that a free and democratic Iraq that never does anything objectionable to us just ain't gonna happen because Bush won't let it happen.
More blogs about politics.