The only way to get the Iraqis to accept responsibility for their future is by no longer extending them an indefinite blank check, intensifying diplomacy and withdrawing our troops swiftly, responsibly and safely.
-Lee Feinstein, national security director for the Clinton campaign
March 30, 2008
The blame game, ad infinitum
Though it's become the centerpiece of the Beltway argument for troop withdrawal, it still never fails to nauseate me:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've actually heard this a lot here at CAP and others. It's not quite what it sounds like...
The Iraqis overwhelmingly want us to leave, but while we're still there, US-backed leaders are just taking the money and resources and funneling them into personal wealth instead of investing in their country. They think it makes no sense to try any of that until we leave.
That's at least what I understand of the argument, I need to look into it more, but it makes more sense now that I hear it a lot. I wish I had a clearer understand of it so you could pushback.
The thing that I take issue with about the argument is that its proponents so often fail to make that distinction -- it's just the more generalized "Iraqis," which sounds like they're referring to citizens. And if it's the U.S. backed leaders that are embezzling money and are responsible for corruption, then I still think that falls on the heads of those who appointed the leaders.
Having said that, I'm open to interpretations of the argument...I agree that the U.S. should leverage a pledge of withdrawal to engage regional powers and Iraqi leaders, but I hate the way it's been framed as they, they, they -- "they're incapable of taking responsibility" as if they were children, rather than a people oppressed by occupation and leaders trying to navigate an imposed, unfamiliar "one size fits all" system of governance.
I get so stuck on word choice...just concerned we're sending the wrong message.
Post a Comment