Deleted and reposted with correction:) The analogy seems to me faulty on at least four points.First, the analogy would require that the country being occupied be, prior to that occupation, under a tyrannical regime which the great majority of the inhabitants were eager to be rid of.Second, the violent actions taken by the supposed defenders of the homeland would have to be carried out largely by supporters of the unpopular tyrannical regime which had been removed from power by the invaders.Third, the overwhelming majority of those violent actions would have to be directed against the native inhabitants of the country rather than against the occupying forces.Fourth, Paul says something about the overwhelming majority of inhabitants wanting the foreign forces withdrawn. Perhaps that is the case in Afghanistan, but I don't know that it has been the case in Iraq.Strengthen the analogy by correcting it on these points and you weaken the case that Paul is trying to make for his conclusion.
I think it's really apt. True enough, they are glad to have Saddam gone. But Saddam has been gone for a long time. Like 8 years. We're still there. We won't leave. We tell them we are there for their safety. We kill and maim. Here's a story about how US forces handcuffed and then executed a family, including infants. This is all with Saddam gone, but with our troops unwilling to leave. So Paul says we should imagine how we'd feel with a foreign military on our soil unwilling to leave. That's worth asking. And consider that Saddam was installed and sustained by the US and the Shiite rebellion that might have overthrown him in 1991 was thwarted by the US. Imagine that Chinese troops are there wrecking your country in order to remove a tyrant they installed. It's even worse when we consider Iraq's condition.As to your second point, I don't understand why you see that as relevant. I suppose many that supported Saddam resist the US occupation. But many that didn't likewise resist. They all resist. And saying that people "supported" Saddam may only mean they pledged fealty as a means to survive.You say the violence is directed against inhabitants. There's a lot of that. But Iraqis of all sectarian stripes see the presence of US troops as the primary root of their violent differences (see here). Imagine how you'd feel if the Chinese presence led further to internal strife in addition to the Chinese violence against you and your people. This leads to your fourth point. This poll from 2005 shows that 82% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of US troops. Many of those that don't agree are among the first that would be swinging from the lamp posts if US troops did leave. People like Malaki that make up the membership of the present puppet regime. So yeah, they want us out badly in Iraq just as they do in Afghanistan.
Hi, sorry to leave an unrelated comment, but I couldn’t find any contact info for you. I’m wondering if you’d be interested in a guest post. Please drop me an e-mail. Thanks!
Unknown, I don't see your email address either. Put it here and I'll send you an email. A guest post sounds fine assuming it's on topic and worthwhile. I'd have to be the judge of course.
Post a Comment