Letters to the Editor
-
@shooter242
I notice that neither you nor Glenn propose a viable alternative to quelling civil war, state sponsored genocide, or rule by mass murder. Just moral fastidiousness about practical efforts to stop participants from killing themselves and others. Like it or not that translates into benign neglect, or rather, permission for the regimes mentioned above to continue their murderous ways. How moral is that?
Specific to Iraq - the answer is a withdrawal of all American forces; no bases, no military advisers, nothing.
Quote:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on the current state of affairs in Iraq with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Reviewing the presentations by our panel, I have noted with some concern that they seem more focused on justifying a future attack on Iran than reporting on progress in Iraq. Much of the assertions about Iran in Iraq seem illogical, others seem intended to inflame the situation with little justification.
Particularly, I am concerned about claims that a new enemy in Iraq has emerged with ties to Iran. First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the "dead-enders" from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became "al-Qaeda in Iraq," a prime focus of the presentation by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus last September. Now we are told that the new enemies are mysterious "Special Groups" that are said to have spun off from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
If this phenomenon of constantly emerging enemies bent on destabilizing Iraq is accurate and our presence in Iraq keeps generating new enemies, perhaps the problem is the occupation itself. If this is the case, doesn’t it make sense that our departure from Iraq may actually have a stabilizing effect?
-Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul455.html