As much as I respect Richard Clarke and his views and opinions, there's fundamental disagreement I have with this viewpoint.
And I fear that (on the anniversary of the events of 9/11), we've already lost the chance to learn anything.
It's a fallacy - the underlying notion that the United States, has the unilateral right to invade other countries. This should not be confused with ensuring one's nation is secure, as security doesn't just involve invasion. It would include shoring up our defenses, work to prevent attacks, work with other countries, etc).
To me those are two different things. The latter is something nations do - the former is something empires do.
This commenter sums it up best -
"Any strategy we use in Afghanistan will be the wrong one, for the simple reason that the U.S. presence there is the main cause of the violence. But conventional thinking in Washington is now so imperialist that our officials think they have the right to invade any nation they want, for as long as they want, as long as it suits our politicians. I doubt that anyone seriously thinks any Af-Pak strategy will work. It's just a matter of stalling and kicking the can down the road so some other president gets the humiliation of the eventual pullout. Vietnam all over again. But's it's great for business, isn't it? Just think of all the gasoline, ammunition, armored vehicles, aircraft, etc. that's used. "
No comments:
Post a Comment