This is the opinion page of NYT. I wonder how far this perspective wanders from reality. If there's anything I've learned from studying the Arab-Israeli conflict its that most individual perspectives provide a universally bad account for causes, effects, and relations in a given situation, while simultaneously offering a rich amount of insight into human bias, error, emotion, and self deception.
That is, however, not to say that that is what this account is.
On that note, does anyone have a suggestion for the most non-biased sources i.e. books for understanding the conflict? I realize it's probably going to be very hard right now since distance in terms of time usually leads to more accurate and less biased analyses of a historical event.
American here. Never supported sending troops over there. Not a lot of people did. But Bush did it anyway. Didn't vote for him. Sad to see what it did to people.
Man, that's depressing. While I never argued for invasion, I deeply regret supporting those who waged the war thinking that lack of support would lead to a quagmire and a situation that was worse than before, and that was pretty awful. The more I read about the war, I came to the conclusion it had absolutely no chance of being anything else. It's got to be one of the worst cases of collective sunk cost fallacy.
Empires are evil. America is one of the least evil, but that doesn't justify its empire. It might have been necessary to defeat Nazism, and to hold back the spread of communism, but we are squandering our future's prosperity to accomplish what exactly? I could understand if it was a question for survival, but American citizens enjoy so much security it's ridiculous, even 15 years ago. Even with all the mass shootings.
Boycott news media. Boycott national politics. The world will be better off.
We were defending the petrodollar in Iraq. i.e. attempting to maintain American hegemony. Viewing all recent conflicts through that lens really helps to understand. "Yellow cake" and the like is just how it was sold.
'Some credible estimates put the number [of people who died since 2003] at more than one million.' 'The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a “blunder,” or even a “colossal mistake.” It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry. [...] The pundits and “experts” who sold us the war still go on doing what they do.'
Why oh why is this flagged? Does HN lack the stomach for civil debate about a contentious issue?
For those trigger happy flaggers - the responsibility ordained on you shouldn't be abused. Reddit will devolve into partisan piffle, HN IS the only space that's remotely capable of civility. So, don't flag - encourage diversity of thought!!
Going to jump out on a limb and assume you're an American like me, if I'm wrong change the metaphors. What if another country killed a million of our countrymen. 20 years from now, would you have to apologize for the actions of the CIA, or the worst actions of all our leaders in the prior 40 years? Would you have to apologize for that before, during or after any reminiscences about the destruction of your country?
And similarly it's a little odd to hold an entire country of 350 million people responsible for the self serving decisions made by a small cabal of powerful oil people(Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.)
Similarly was the entire country of Iraq responsible for horrific transgressions against the Kurds, Iran and Kuwait or just a small cabal of corrupt people with real power?
I guess "Fifteen years ago, American armed forces and American mercenaries destroyed my country at the bidding of the democratically elected leaders, but with only partial consent of the citizens" was too wordy.
To be serious, blaming an "entire country" is a little more understandable if that country is a functioning democracy. Of course, if it's actually an oligarchy where the government is above the law and many voters are disenfranchised and easily manipulated by unchecked propaganda, then... well, that's frustrating.
>"To be serious, blaming an "entire country" is a little more understandable if that country is a functioning democracy."
No it would be "more understandable" if that country was a direct democracy and the people actually voted on the resolution. The US is a representative democracy and often resembles a plutocracy at that.
So continuing with your simplistic analysis - if someone was from a democratic leaning state and none of their elected officials voted for the resolution does that mean those people are free from blame? What if someone's elected official voted in favor of the resolution to invade Iraq but that individual was themself against it. So that individual is held to blame?
The US may have a system of democratically electing representatives but many(most?) of those elected representatives look out for themselves first, their party second and the will of the people that put them in office a distant third.
The US may have a system of democratically electing representatives but many(most?) of those elected representatives look out for themselves first, their party second and the will of the people that put them in office a distant third.
Good thing you didn't start off with a snide remark about the simplicity of my analysis.
Anyway, I would separate "blame" and "responsibility". There's a difference between the blame for the war and whatever responsibility the United States has to Iraq going forward. The blame lies in the past. The responsibility to improve upon our mistakes is pretty obvious if we want to pretend we have some sort of national morality.
>"Good thing you didn't start off with a snide remark about the simplicity of my analysis"
There was no intention on my part of being the least bit derogatory. Your entire argument for why and entire country is to blame amounted to two pithy sentences.
I'm not sure why you would fail to see that how that might considered overly simplistic. Instead you have chosen to interpret it as a personal attack of which it was not.
Neither most likely. I think that this man is an apatrid and that he doesn't have a real home judging by a similar string of events in my life. My country was economically devastated due to unfavorable Geo-political circumstances and I eventually had to choose to move, rather than to prolong meaningless suffering. I was lucky to have a choice. Although, I'd say it was not as dramatic as in the case of Iraq. Anyhow, I feel as if I don't belong anywhere.
That war destroyed both countries. The credibility and finances, and the lives of thousands of soldiers in one, and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands and the societal fabric of another. Please take your tu quoque/no true scotsman fallacy somewhere else.
I've also noticed people jump to attacking each other quite a lot more in the comments of pieces like this.