In a sense, this is sort of a moot point--Your Right Hand Thief posted a link to this article which indicates the United States and it's
At the same time, I'd like to note the differences between the Gulf War I coalition and this year's model. Note that not a single nation comprised of mainly Arabic speaking peoples has contributed troops. Also, note the large discrepency in actual numbers of soldiers--not to mention costs incurred.
In short, the Bush coalition isn't. And that's no slap in the face to Britain, Australia, POLAND, Italy, or any of the other "members." It's simply a fact. The "coalition" is a lot more like a limited partnership, with the other nations assuming the role of limited partner.
If a genuine coalition--including Arabic speaking nations--had been established, perhaps Iraq wouldn't be quite the mess it is right now. But the fact that no Arabic speaking nations wanted to participate--and particularly, the fact that NO nations BORDERING Iraq came along for the misadventure (recall the wingnuts hollering for Turkish heads to roll?)--speaks volumes as to first, their lack of confidence in the success of the Unites States' invasion, and, just as important, their lack of fear towards any expansionist tendencies of Hussein.
And, now come the obligatory 'that doesn't mean I support Saddam' section. No, I didn't, and neither did anyone else opposing Bush's stupid war. We did, however, recognize reality--that Hussein was boxed in. He was contained. No, it wasn't a picnic for the Iraqi people--and it's not a picnic right now. But the invasion was not a new beginning for the region. It was and remains a festering sore that could erupt at any moment. As I've posted before, the only thing I was surprised by was the incredible rapidity with which things fell apart--but, then again, I assumed that Bush would at least pay lip service to the Powell Doctrine. He didn't.
Our soldiers are paying the price.
No comments:
Post a Comment