Who am I?
Christian. Skeptic. Ponderer. Sold on Western Civilization. Background in engineering and software. Rational, but not rationalist.
I'm a Hugh-inspired, long-tail blogger.
I Value
Informs my values.
News
Blog Search
Posts On This Page:
Archives
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- October 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- July 2010
- February 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- February 2013
Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Iraqi war: 'Proxy,' not 'civil'
Though I disagree with some of the author's views, I think the distinction between 'proxy' and 'civil' is an important one.
When is a "civil war" not a "civil war"? Simply put, when it's not a civil war.
We're no fans of the war in Iraq. As we opined nearly a year ago, it's time for the United States to leave. Saddam Hussein was ousted, captured, tried, convicted and soon will pay the ultimate price for his crimes. And if our goal truly is Iraqi "self-determination," well, there's no time like the present. Iraq must step up to the plate.
That said, some "experts" and many media outlets seem to think they can nudge the process along and further turn the American people against the war by calling the exploding sectarian violence a "civil war." The thinking appears to be that, branded as such, Americans will have no stomach for fighting the proverbial "somebody else's war" and demand our withdrawal.
The Bush administration disputes the "civil war" moniker. And it's not a semantic argument. Just Tuesday, The New York Times reported that "the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militias led by Moktada al-Sadr." It's not the only outside influence.
Such a proxy war is not a civil war. Neither is it unreasonable or naive to believe that sans those proxies, Iraq might not be the hellhole it now is. Nonetheless, this remains a matter for the Iraqis to settle.
Though I agree that "Iraq must step up to the plate," what does our withdrawl do but empower these proxies (Syria and Iran) and reward the murder, mayhem and subterfuge they're bringing?
Via Instapundit, who adds:
Yes, and they're the proxies of Iran and Syria. These people are not our friends.
Update, 11/30: In case there was any doubt, "incontrovertible proof now exists of Iran's material assistance to Iraqi Shiite forces:"
U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.
Comments:
(Please keep in mind that each commenter's opinions are only his/her own.)
Post a Comment
<< Home