Questions Brought to Mind by US General's Speech Re Iraq
The official message delivered by the US military leadership to the US military regarding Iraq seems to be: "Suprress civil strife in Iraq, bring security to the new US sponsored Iraq, protect the new Iraq from the bad guys who are the terrorist/insurgent/criminals, because providing security for the new US sponsored Iraq is the way to save Iraq from descending into violent civil strife.
This military message brings to mind several questions:
Is it not true, that often when the US or some other powerful nation has NOT attempted to police civil strife in a foreign area, this has been in the best interest of the US or the given powerful nation?
Is it not true, that many areas of the world have historically been torn by civil strife, civil strife which powerful nations outside the civil strife, have wisely refrained from interfering in, having correctly judged such restraint to be in their own best interest?
Is it not true, that historically powerful nations have sometimes damaged the cause of their own self interest by meddling in foreign civil strife?
Where is the proof that attempting to suppress civil strife in Iraq is a better use of national resources such as time, human energy, mechanical energy, and money, than other alternative possible uses of such national resources?
Some worry that the Christians of Iraq will be exterminated if the USA leaves Iraq. Where is the proof that attempting to police Iraq is the best possible use of resources when it comes to the service of Christendom in general?
Is it not true, that historically civil strife has sometimes died away in societies, without any 'superpower' intervening to attempt to suppress the civil strife?
Is it not true, that historically sometimes intervention in foreign civil strife by so-called 'superpowers' has prolonged and intensified the civil strife instead of pacifying it?
Is it not true, that historically civil strife in foreign societies, has been pacified by outside third party interventions NOT involving the use of the outside third party nation's troops as combat policemen involved in the foreign civil strife?
For example, is it not true, that historically there have been situations in the world where nation A has intervened to decrease civil strife in nation B, without committing nation A's troops to combat in nation B?
For example, is it not true, that sometimes historically and also possibly in the future, there are situations where nation A works without committing its own troops, to produce a balance of power between competing factions in civil-strife-torn nation B wherein no one faction is able to abuse a competing faction?
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
This military message brings to mind several questions:
Is it not true, that often when the US or some other powerful nation has NOT attempted to police civil strife in a foreign area, this has been in the best interest of the US or the given powerful nation?
Is it not true, that many areas of the world have historically been torn by civil strife, civil strife which powerful nations outside the civil strife, have wisely refrained from interfering in, having correctly judged such restraint to be in their own best interest?
Is it not true, that historically powerful nations have sometimes damaged the cause of their own self interest by meddling in foreign civil strife?
Where is the proof that attempting to suppress civil strife in Iraq is a better use of national resources such as time, human energy, mechanical energy, and money, than other alternative possible uses of such national resources?
Some worry that the Christians of Iraq will be exterminated if the USA leaves Iraq. Where is the proof that attempting to police Iraq is the best possible use of resources when it comes to the service of Christendom in general?
Is it not true, that historically civil strife has sometimes died away in societies, without any 'superpower' intervening to attempt to suppress the civil strife?
Is it not true, that historically sometimes intervention in foreign civil strife by so-called 'superpowers' has prolonged and intensified the civil strife instead of pacifying it?
Is it not true, that historically civil strife in foreign societies, has been pacified by outside third party interventions NOT involving the use of the outside third party nation's troops as combat policemen involved in the foreign civil strife?
For example, is it not true, that historically there have been situations in the world where nation A has intervened to decrease civil strife in nation B, without committing nation A's troops to combat in nation B?
For example, is it not true, that sometimes historically and also possibly in the future, there are situations where nation A works without committing its own troops, to produce a balance of power between competing factions in civil-strife-torn nation B wherein no one faction is able to abuse a competing faction?
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 2:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home