Although I don't have her permission...I really feel that my sister's letter to the editor in regards to the referenced op/ed piece by Krugman is not only right on the money, hitting the nail on the head and any other overused cliche you care to use, but also incredibly well written.
Write on, sista!
Letter to the Editor;
It is hypocritical for this Administration to demand Israel unilaterally cease what appears to be justified aggression against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Such an action may, however unlikely, lead to peaceful resolution and mutual recognition of each other’s right to exist. Peace does not serve this Administration’s interests any more than it did during the Cold War.
The only reason the USA is in Iraq is because Iraq was the only country weak enough for the USA to invade and sustain an occupation. There are at least 14 “enduring” bases in Iraq this Administration never intends to abandon. The USA will never completely pull out of Iraq, which is why there was never an exit strategy. An American presence in the Middle East can only be justified if there is instability that threatens American interests. Peace is the essence of stability; therefore, there is no incentive to have peace, sustainable or otherwise, in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East.
Democracy; that is, the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people, is definitely not this administration’s goal for Iraq. It is the height of hypocrisy for this Administration to claim to be furthering democracy in Iraq and, by extension, the Middle East. Clearly, it is not in this Administration’s interests to have another Shiite nation in the Middle East.
I don’t think this Administration is interested in Iraqi oil reserves. That is small potatoes. Armageddon appears to be this Administration’s goal. I’m just not sure which side (good or evil) this Administration is on.
Stephanie Barrett
Op-Ed Columnist
Shock and Awe
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Yes, I know that there are big differences in the origins of the two wars. There’s no question of this war having been sold on false pretenses; unlike America in Iraq, Israel is clearly acting in self-defense.
But both Clausewitz and Sherman were right: war is both a continuation of policy by other means, and all hell. It’s a terrible mistake to start a major military operation, regardless of the moral justification, unless you have very good reason to believe that the action will improve matters.
The most compelling argument against an invasion of Iraq wasn’t the suspicion many of us had, which turned out to be correct, that the administration’s case for war was fraudulent. It was the fact that the real reason government officials and many pundits wanted a war — their belief that if the United States used its military might to “hit someone” in the Arab world, never mind exactly who, it would shock and awe Islamic radicals into giving up terrorism — was, all too obviously, a childish fantasy.
And the results of going to war on the basis of that fantasy were predictably disastrous: the fiasco in Iraq has ended up demonstrating the limits of U.S. power, strengthening radical Islam — especially radical Shiites allied with Iran, a group that includes Hezbollah — and losing America the moral high ground.
What I never expected was that Israel — a nation that has unfortunately had plenty of experience with both war and insurgency — would be susceptible to similar fantasies. Yet that’s what seems to have happened.
There is a case for a full-scale Israeli ground offensive against Hezbollah. It may yet come to that, if Israel can’t find any other way to protect itself. There is also a case for restraint — limited counterstrikes combined with diplomacy, an effort to get other players to rein Hezbollah in, with the option of that full-scale offensive always in the background.
But the actual course Israel has chosen — a bombing campaign that clearly isn’t crippling Hezbollah, but is destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure and killing lots of civilians — achieves the worst of both worlds. Presumably there were people in the Israeli government who assured the political leadership that a rain of smart bombs would smash and/or intimidate Hezbollah into submission. Those people should be fired.
Israel’s decision to rely on shock and awe rather than either diplomacy or boots on the ground, like the U.S. decision to order the U.N. inspectors out and invade Iraq without sufficient troops or a plan to stabilize the country, is having the opposite of its intended effect. Hezbollah has acquired heroic status, while Israel has both damaged its reputation as a regional superpower and made itself a villain in the eyes of the world.
Complaining that this is unfair does no good, just as repeating “but Saddam was evil” does nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. What Israel needs now is a way out of the quagmire. And since Israel doesn’t appear ready to reoccupy southern Lebanon, that means doing what it should have done from the beginning: try restraint and diplomacy. And Israel will negotiate from a far weaker position than seemed possible just three weeks ago.
And what about the role of the United States, which should be trying to contain the crisis? Our response has been both hapless and malign.
For the moment, U.S. policy seems to be to stall and divert efforts to negotiate a cease-fire as long as possible, so as to give Israel a chance to dig its hole even deeper. Also, we aren’t talking to Syria, which might hold the key to resolving the crisis, because President Bush doesn’t believe in talking to bad people, and anyway that’s the kind of thing Bill Clinton did. Did I mention that these people are childish?
Again, Israel has the right to protect itself. If all-out war with Hezbollah becomes impossible to avoid, so be it. But bombing Lebanon isn’t making Israel more secure.
As this column was going to press, Israel — responding to the horror at Qana, where missiles killed dozens of civilians, many of them children — announced a 48-hour suspension of aerial bombardment. But why resume that bombardment when the 48 hours are up? The hard truth is that Israel needs, for its own sake, to stop a bombing campaign that is making its enemies stronger, not weaker.
Write on, sista!
Letter to the Editor;
It is hypocritical for this Administration to demand Israel unilaterally cease what appears to be justified aggression against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Such an action may, however unlikely, lead to peaceful resolution and mutual recognition of each other’s right to exist. Peace does not serve this Administration’s interests any more than it did during the Cold War.
The only reason the USA is in Iraq is because Iraq was the only country weak enough for the USA to invade and sustain an occupation. There are at least 14 “enduring” bases in Iraq this Administration never intends to abandon. The USA will never completely pull out of Iraq, which is why there was never an exit strategy. An American presence in the Middle East can only be justified if there is instability that threatens American interests. Peace is the essence of stability; therefore, there is no incentive to have peace, sustainable or otherwise, in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East.
Democracy; that is, the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people, is definitely not this administration’s goal for Iraq. It is the height of hypocrisy for this Administration to claim to be furthering democracy in Iraq and, by extension, the Middle East. Clearly, it is not in this Administration’s interests to have another Shiite nation in the Middle East.
I don’t think this Administration is interested in Iraqi oil reserves. That is small potatoes. Armageddon appears to be this Administration’s goal. I’m just not sure which side (good or evil) this Administration is on.
Stephanie Barrett
Op-Ed Columnist
Shock and Awe
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Yes, I know that there are big differences in the origins of the two wars. There’s no question of this war having been sold on false pretenses; unlike America in Iraq, Israel is clearly acting in self-defense.
But both Clausewitz and Sherman were right: war is both a continuation of policy by other means, and all hell. It’s a terrible mistake to start a major military operation, regardless of the moral justification, unless you have very good reason to believe that the action will improve matters.
The most compelling argument against an invasion of Iraq wasn’t the suspicion many of us had, which turned out to be correct, that the administration’s case for war was fraudulent. It was the fact that the real reason government officials and many pundits wanted a war — their belief that if the United States used its military might to “hit someone” in the Arab world, never mind exactly who, it would shock and awe Islamic radicals into giving up terrorism — was, all too obviously, a childish fantasy.
And the results of going to war on the basis of that fantasy were predictably disastrous: the fiasco in Iraq has ended up demonstrating the limits of U.S. power, strengthening radical Islam — especially radical Shiites allied with Iran, a group that includes Hezbollah — and losing America the moral high ground.
What I never expected was that Israel — a nation that has unfortunately had plenty of experience with both war and insurgency — would be susceptible to similar fantasies. Yet that’s what seems to have happened.
There is a case for a full-scale Israeli ground offensive against Hezbollah. It may yet come to that, if Israel can’t find any other way to protect itself. There is also a case for restraint — limited counterstrikes combined with diplomacy, an effort to get other players to rein Hezbollah in, with the option of that full-scale offensive always in the background.
But the actual course Israel has chosen — a bombing campaign that clearly isn’t crippling Hezbollah, but is destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure and killing lots of civilians — achieves the worst of both worlds. Presumably there were people in the Israeli government who assured the political leadership that a rain of smart bombs would smash and/or intimidate Hezbollah into submission. Those people should be fired.
Israel’s decision to rely on shock and awe rather than either diplomacy or boots on the ground, like the U.S. decision to order the U.N. inspectors out and invade Iraq without sufficient troops or a plan to stabilize the country, is having the opposite of its intended effect. Hezbollah has acquired heroic status, while Israel has both damaged its reputation as a regional superpower and made itself a villain in the eyes of the world.
Complaining that this is unfair does no good, just as repeating “but Saddam was evil” does nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. What Israel needs now is a way out of the quagmire. And since Israel doesn’t appear ready to reoccupy southern Lebanon, that means doing what it should have done from the beginning: try restraint and diplomacy. And Israel will negotiate from a far weaker position than seemed possible just three weeks ago.
And what about the role of the United States, which should be trying to contain the crisis? Our response has been both hapless and malign.
For the moment, U.S. policy seems to be to stall and divert efforts to negotiate a cease-fire as long as possible, so as to give Israel a chance to dig its hole even deeper. Also, we aren’t talking to Syria, which might hold the key to resolving the crisis, because President Bush doesn’t believe in talking to bad people, and anyway that’s the kind of thing Bill Clinton did. Did I mention that these people are childish?
Again, Israel has the right to protect itself. If all-out war with Hezbollah becomes impossible to avoid, so be it. But bombing Lebanon isn’t making Israel more secure.
As this column was going to press, Israel — responding to the horror at Qana, where missiles killed dozens of civilians, many of them children — announced a 48-hour suspension of aerial bombardment. But why resume that bombardment when the 48 hours are up? The hard truth is that Israel needs, for its own sake, to stop a bombing campaign that is making its enemies stronger, not weaker.
Comments