Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Ironclad
Published Letters: 68 Editor's Choice: 19
When I read this article, I did not know whether to laugh or to cry at the total lack of substance in the piece. The complete lack of understanding about use of military forces is a joke (campaigns are based on logistics - not driving your army across the border), total lack of understanding of the people (the Iraqis are Arab, not Persian - and while they may be Shiite, they certainly do not follow the same leaders) and the situation (much huffing and puffing on both sides - sometimes called bargaining in the middle east). What other motivation for having dancers prance around on TV with "enriched Uranium" vials? - I hope that they have a good long term medical plan after that stunt.
Other than just a very poor attempt to bash Bush - I see little grounding in reality for this scenario. All this started when Seymour Hearsh revealed that the Pentagon was studying taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Would that be so surprising if they had been studying doing the same to the Chinese? But then, the EU is on the case negotiating for us - so why worry? Look at the great job they did in Bosnia before that illegal war.
What I do see though is a failure on Mr Conason's part to see that the opposite is indeed happening - the Iranians are in a proxy war with the US in Iraq through the militias (Mr. Sadr's comes to mind). You can rightly complain that the US should have never allowed the militias to be formed in the first place in Iraq, but don't act like the Iranian side is completely innocent in this game.
I think that most people get uncomfortable with the idea that people can kill and murder and commit the most monstrous atrocities in the name of an ideology. As Ms Zacharek points out - the film does not shy away from addressing this point that these people were motivated completely by their religion. The Khafirs (non-believers) that they killed had no right to live, so the hijackers committed no sin. They were acting perfectly logically from their world view point.
The uncomfortable truth for a lot of people is the realization that no amount of reasoning, discussion or persuasion is going to change this viewpoint. No protest, no "sensitivity training", no good intentions will make a difference in their behavior. And because they are now moving about in our world, we cannot ignore them any more.
The passengers on Flight 93 took action to take the plane back after they realized this point. When they realized what the hijackers were intending - suicide bombs- the rules (and the world) changed. If the movie says nothing else - it shows that resistance in the face of this "truth" is not futile.
The article is correct - that something needs to be done. However, by the time that this proposal takes effect, the problem will be resolved because all of the refugees will either be dead or permanently displaced. This is feel good politics at its worst - because the consequence of physical inaction is the continuation of the current slaughter & starvation.
And diplomatic action is going nowhere - because the Chinese and the Russians have oil interests that trump humanitarian action - and assure vetoes in the Security Council.
But I am terribly confused here - in Sudan, you have a people that are oppressed by the government, groups that are killed & displaced by the "favorites" of the regime, and a country that has oil resources. And here, we need to intervene? Read Kurds & Shiites for the oppressed and explain to me what the difference is between Iraq and Sudan - why is it is ok to intervene in one place and not the other? After all, this have been going on for 20 years - in the Southern Sudan and now in the Western part - the only difference is that this time, the victims are a lot more photogenic. Or maybe this is somehow “Noble” because we have no interests there?
Intervention would make Iraq look like a picnic too - you would have the Muslim world crying "crusader" at you all day long. In the end, you would have to take down the Sudanese government & military to have any hope of resolving the problem. But then, what would you replace it with?
The real choices are simple: stay out, arm the Dafur people or rain hell on the Janjaweed areas until they get the idea that leaving their neighbors alone is a really good idea. But no ground troops - period. The divestment alternative will just move the funds into the hands of those that could care less. So either feel guilty or realize that some nasty things have to be done.
Sometimes choices are bad, worse and evil - and here, that certainly is the case.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
