The pro-Iranian U.S. colonial regime in Iraq (ironic, yes; misprint, no) is now warning its citizens to flee the "Sadr City" section of the country's capital so a free-fire zone can be created.
In Vietnam, the U.S. destroyed villages in order to save them (that was before fleeing by helicopter from the Embassy roof; the "light at the end of the tunnel" was the headlight of a rescue helicopter). In Iraq, the U.S. is destroying the colonial capital in order to save it. The U.S. is also bribing the pro-Saddam Sunnis not to attack it while it concentrates on fighting the poor Shi'a whom Saddam oppressed.
Is there any opponent too small, too weak to attract the concentrated fury of the world's last superpower?
Given the enormous amount of force Washington is employing against these urban guerrillas and their mosques and hospitals and homes, exactly what will Washington do if once again faced with a real enemy (and, no, I do not mean Iran)? If you smash mosquitoes with a sledgehammer, what do you use for elephants?
These are not cheap shots. The role of a superpower is to develop grand global strategy for long-term global security and progress, i.e., to be the CEO and provide vision. Expending huge amounts of energy to antagonize (the U.S. pressed the attack via arrests and then outright military moves against al Sadr despite his declaration of a ceasefire) a local political faction that opposes the U.S. presence in its own country but is not, aside from that, an enemy of the U.S. seems a spendthrift and ultimately untenable approach to managing a big world.
No comments:
Post a Comment