Posted by David on February 27, 2008, 8:39 pm, in reply to "Response from Kevin Myers"
89.100.103.209
Dear Kevin Myers,
Thanks for responding.
Fortunately the Iraqi government doesn't have to agree with the information I've offered, it is verifiable fact whether they accept it or not. The policies you mention are not those of the Iraqi government, they are those of the occupying army - again as you say uninfluenced by Iraqi opinion, but in contradiction to it. My point was not necessarily that the occupiers should withdraw, though I do think this is the case, but that their continued presence prolongs the violence - a fact obscured by discourse routed in uncontextualised themes of "victories", "surges" and "reawakenings".
Further, if you accept that the US remains in Iraq under the conditions of international law it has a duty to fulfil all obligations under the charter. And of course the present UN mandate does not comment and has no bearing on prior judgements. Therefore if you accept it as legitimate, then the invasion and initial occupation must be judged by the same criteria - which poses serious questions for the interpretation of present circumstances, not just historical.
Unfortunately I am not as optimistic as you in anticipating an effective distinction between Obama and McCain with regards Iraq. The US I fear are intrinsically tied to the region economically and militarily. The choice seems less likely peace and more so bloody pacification.
Yours sincerely,
David Manning
Message Thread:
« Back to thread