It occured to me after writing the last post that one way in which our strategy in Iraq has differed from our strategy in World War II is that we made both Germany and Japan surrender unconditionally, complete with official signing ceremonies. We never required this from what was left of Saddam's government. I think we should have.
Certainly the events at Luneburg Heath and Tokyo Bay provided many German and Japanese patriots the steel necessary for "enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable." Would such an event in Bagdhad have done the same for Iraqis?
Instead in Iraq we're still technically at war, years after the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime. Is it a coincidence that we are facing an insurgency made up primarily of former Ba'athist whom refuse to believe that the war is over? At the same time, every Iraqi sectarian horror that occurs is swept up by both the middle-eastern and western press into the narrative of "the war," and framed as an American military defeat whether it even involved the American military or not.
Note to ourselves: in the future, make defeated enemies unconditionally surrender.
The road to wisdom? Well it's plain
and simple to express:
Err, and err,
and err again,
but less, and less, and less.
-Piet Hein
In a nutshell: if we wish to remain the Land of the Free,™ freedom must come first.
Big Ideas for a Better World
October 08, 2008
October 08, 2008
October 08, 2008
October 08, 2008
October 08, 2008
January 07, 2009
January 07, 2009
January 07, 2009
January 06, 2009
January 06, 2009
January 06, 2009
January 06, 2009
January 06, 2009