"It requires us to choose another nation to be the surrogate battlefield. From the perspective of the inhabitants of that nation, we're simply using them as human shields. The inevitable resentment undercuts the tactical advantage by tending to turn the occupied nation's people against us and by giving credence to the enemy's rhetoric. We inevitably end up multiplying the enemies we have to fight."
I think the inhibitants of a country are smart enough to recognize the difference between the terrorist who want to kill them and prevent the country from being democratically ruled, and the Coalition forces who want to kill the terrorists and allow the country to be ruled by a demorcacy.
A problem is that most Americans or Europeans don't know very much about these terrorists, whereas Iraqis know them too well.
And if you use resentment as a guiding principle, how would you apply that in terms of resolving the America Civil War or any other war in history.
Flame » in reply to re: Choices are limited
re: Choices are limited
The whole thread (36 posts)
- Control and isolation
- The mistake in Iraq was Bush's father's.
- Why shouldn't the US control the world?
- Choices are limited
- To be totally secure is to be a total prisoner.
- Yes, it is rhetorical