Letters to the Editor
springy
Published Letters: 6
-
What risks?
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What risks are these? Your argument rests on deduction and inference, without much discussion of the facts on the ground. Undoubtedly, there are risks to continuing the occupation. But your introduction suggested you would make a balance sheet of them, compared to withdrawal. You then failed to do so in the body of your argument. Do some reading on the political, social and military situation in Iraq and rewrite. C+
-
The risk of staying
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So there is one risk, Glenn, for you: conflict with Iran. This seems less likely today, as the US is in talks with Iran for the first time for several years. The risks of staying are in fact myriad: that the US occupation is fanning the flames of civil war; that US soldiers are dying; that US legitimacy overseas is being eroded. But you don't really discuss them in the context of the risks of going: wider civil war, and perhaps a wider conflict throughout the Middle East along sectarian lines; death and destruction; a failed state in Iraq to add to the long list of failed US interventions; fewer human rights; more religious zeal. I wasn't attacking your premise as much as your argument, which privileges Washington bickering over Iraqi social and political problems, and adds nothing to our understanding of the problems Iraq faces. You have read the Standard and maybe some conservative blogs as your research for this article. You obviously can't be bothered to do your research on Iraq in any serious way. I'll bump you up to a B- if it makes you feel better.
-
The risk: neoconservatism
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps we could have something more nuanced than "you can't read!" this time round. My problem with your article, Glenn, is that you don't bother with any discussion of the real risks. I'll repeat again. There is no discussion of historical processes in Iraq, merely the baiting of neoconservatives. Democrats shouldn't advocate withdrawal from Iraq in order to score points against Kristol. They should do so after thinking carefully about what will happen if the US does withdraw. Whether it will turn into a bloodbath should probably be part of their calculations. As Said pointed out, Western discussions of the East are usually ordered by the processes of Western power. Your article is no different. Democrats need to hammer the Republicans. The electorate doesn't like the war. So the Democrats calculate that withdrawal will help them win next year. Perhaps you should make up your mind by thinking about the conditions on the ground?
-
Ignore away
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Before you do, though, I'd like to point out that I'm not a Republican or a neoconservative, and I opposed the war in the first place. I try to imagine how American power might affect all people, rather than just Americans, and the absence of it in Iraq may be catastrophic for Iraqis. The Iraqi government might manage to create a viable state, and impose some form of order on the current chaos by themselves, but at the moment I think the odds are against.
-
IngSoc
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you kidding? Do you think the break-up of a state awash with oil will be happy and peaceful? Do you think the two sects will stop murdering each other when there is a total power vacuum?
-
Print vs. TV
[Read the article: Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the role of the American press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The US does better newspapers than the UK, I think. The reporting is better researched and more impartial, and more serious. In Blighty, the tabloid culture has infected the broadsheet press, which now only produces endless sleb gossip and features.
That said, the BBC and Channel 4 news programmes are superb. This is because they are properly funded, and don't have to rely on advertising revenue (Channel 4 receives state funding). They have enough money for lots of foreign correspondents. There are none of these crappy opinion pieces by newscasters. And there is no pressure to give, say, the weather top billing. I'm British, but I live in the US, and I find American news programmes embarassingly bad.