So shortsighted they should have white sticks
James Fallows has written a very interesting (long) piece for The Atlantic, The Fifty-first State?, which assumes that if/when the the US attacks Iraq, it will eventually ‘win’. But what will happen then?
Going to war with Iraq would mean shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These would include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq’s borders, and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. Are we ready for this long-term relationship?
He speaks to spies, Arabists, oil-company officials, diplomats, scholars, policy experts, and many active-duty and retired soldiers (some pro-war, some anti) and tries to work out what the effects of a war would be. He examines the military/peacekeeping, financial, humanitarian and political implications, from the first few days, to the much longer term. His conclusion:
Merely itemizing the foreseeable effects of a war with Iraq suggests reverberations that would be felt for decades. If we can judge from past wars, the effects we can’t imagine when the fighting begins will prove to be the ones that matter most.
- Hypocrisy is on the march
- Do as we say, not as we do
