Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Afghanistan Fallacy Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_afghanistan_fallacy#28473 Post contents: If the definition of victory in Iraq or Afghanistan implies creating a liberal democracy that is both allied with us in the War on Terror and friendly with Israel, then both wars will be never ending. I think someone needs to articulate a very specific definition of "winning," -- one that can be measured objectively -- and then we can have a debate about 1) is it feasible and 2) is it worth it? So far all the pronouncements about "winning," have been entirely rhetorical. Afghanistan is still viewed differently from Iraq because most Americans regard it as a just war -- in their eyes Afghanistan literally attacked on 9/11 so we are justified in retuning the favor. There is no need to trump "democracy," or "liberation," because the war already has a justification. Things are not so simple with Iraq. With Iraq the casus belli is rather less clear, so the Administration feels it's necessary to provide a justification. That is why we hear much more about "building a democracy in Iraq," or liberating the people. However, this talk is just putting "perfume on the pig," so to speak. We have no intention of really trying to transform Iraq into a democracy, and then grant it sovereignty. Our purpose in Iraq is to militarily dominate the region because of 1)Israel and 2) energy. However we can not bluntly state our reason for the war, so the Administration uses propaganda to make it smell better i.e. putting "democratic" perfume on their imperial pig. No one can be so brutally honest with the American people because it would imply that our government is fundamentally corrupt, untrustworthy, and evil. Sent at: 2008 12 02