- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn,
I tend to agree with your view that the actions of the United States in this war have not been in our national interest. In your interview, however, you seem to support continued U.S. participation in the conflict as a "mediator":
"Well, I think that, for one thing, I think that real negotiations need to ensue, and I think those can only happen with a powerful and devoted mediator, which probably is a role that only the United States can play."
Why should the U.S. even participate to this extent? Obviously, a peaceful resolution to this conflict would be beneficial to our national interests. But wouldn't it also be beneficial to many other nations?
Additionally, what is it that we can specifically provide as a "powerful and devoted mediator" that the EU (or individual nations such as France, Britain, Germany, etc.) can't?
Regardless, our recent actions in the region in the last 8 years probably do not provide us with much credibility in that role.
I am not advocating isolationism but I do think, for national security interests alone, we should have a significant drawback in our participation in this conflict.
