Today I read a NYT article that discussed Obama's and Clinton's rhetoric on the war in Iraq. Apparently, the term "civil war" has finally reared its cowardly head, and the candidates are using it as code for "not our business." Hilary has gone so far as to imply that the current situation is all the Iraqis' fault, and that the U.S. is no longer responsible for cleaning up their mess.
Truly appalling. Even if the current situation is a manifestation of centuries-old "sectarian rife," the fact is that the U.S. invasion left Iraq without a real government to keep the animiosities in check. We created just the right amount of chaos to provide enabling cover and excuse for latent conflicts to reemerge with a vengeance. To say that the "civil war" is entirely of the Iraqis' making is truly rich.
I also find it interesting that Oback Barama is so adamant about removing U.S. troops from a civil war in Iraq. If it is always a foregone conclusion that the U.S. should never be embroiled in civil wars, i.e. domestic disputes, then I wonder what Barama would say about whether the U.S. should intervene in the genocide in Darfur, which is, in a way, a civil war on amphetamines.
My question is: why doesn't the U.S. simply admit that it was foolhardy in taking on sole responsibility for Iraq and appeal to the UN to help stabilize Iraq? It seems to me that complete withdrawal would be a serious disservice to Iraq, considering that we created the mess in the first place.
I'm off to read about the Ottoman Empire.