Martin Kramer contemplates all those scholars who are as angry over the looting of the Baghdad Museum as they are silent on all of the war's sucesses. Why didn't any of them accompany the Marines into Iraq so they could help defend the cultural treasures?[click here and scroll to Apr. 22 post]
It's a pity that some of America's savants weren't along for the ride to Baghdad. Their presence, like that of embedded journalists, would have reminded field commanders of the need to respect and pursue goals deemed important by influential constituencies at home. But our savants didn't propose it. Indeed, they would have found the idea preposterous.Read the whole thing. And while you're there, read everything else on Kramer's weblog too.
Road to nowhere: The "roadmap to Mid East peace" has developed some major potholes. Abu Mazen threatens to walk away from the Prime Minister's job due to Arafat's stubborn attempts to cling to power.
Hassan Khreisheh, a Palestinian legislator, said Tuesday that Arafat is trying to sabotage Abbas' Cabinet list because he is unwilling to give up power. "He (Arafat) fears he will not be the strongman in the coming phase," said Khreisheh.At least Arafat is somewhat self-aware, if nothing else.
It may finally be dawning on Chirac that it's his job to repair relations with Washington and not the other way around
In a surprise move, France on Tuesday proposed immediately suspending U.N. sanctions targeting Iraq civilians, an important step toward the U.S. goal of ending trade embargoes that have crippled the country's economy.Before the war, when he was digging in his heels for Saddam, I got in the habit of spelling his name "Chiraq". But now that he's no longer an Iraqi insider, I've gone back to just plain "Chirac". Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 22, 2003 11:20 AM
And don't forget the "human shields" who specifically went to Iraq to protect non-military facilities. What a wonderful job they did.
Posted by: Lynxx Pherrett on April 22, 2003 11:40 AMMy mom always told us that if we didn't like the food she bought, we could go with her next time.
Posted by: Byna on April 23, 2003 01:13 AMIt is the task of diplomats to not allow situations such as that between France and the United States to develop.
The US was the pro-active partner in the matter and their diplomats in Paris did not do their jobs.
The question is what do they do in Paris?
Surely they could fathom what one of the two largest countries of the EU and a major connection to Saddam Hussein would do?
The US diplomats are at fault in this case. They did not have to go at it like they did. Quiet diplomacy was an option, unless of course they had no intention but to go into Iraq from the start.
It does not excuse the French either for their behavior.
Then again, it appears this war was not about American self-defense but "Iraqi liberation". On this basis, it was an immoral war because it sacrificed American lives.
Is the outcome more important than the reason? It is an important question because if you answer yes then you embrace the immoral ethic that "the end justifies the means". It never does.
The reason to remove Hussein was multifaceted but then so it is to remove al dictators. The Sep 11 reason can be used and applied to all dictatorships.
Why is the United States prepared to "liberate Iraq" and not Cuba?
The waters regarding the reason why Bush "did Iraq" have been muddied. It seems to have settled on "liberation". If that was the reason for war, then it is no better than the Vietnam war, and the only reason it worked out for Bush is because the enemy had no desire to fight.
But then Mr. Bush is no better than Mr. Johnson and is nowhere near the stature of Pres. Reagan. That was America's most recent President.
Posted by: David Klotz on April 25, 2003 06:36 AM