Larsson läser
Janerik Larsson
Janerik Larsson
Lawrence Korb, som var en av Reagans biträdande försvarsministrar, skriver idag på National Interests blogg om vägen framöver: ”The president said he would be willing to take direct military action against ISIS operatives if they posed a direct threat to the United States, including the possibility of direct air strikes. In the final analysis, restoring stability in the region will be accomplished only through diplomacy. As we learned over the past decade in Iraq, relying on military power to achieve political outcomes does not work.”
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/blame-team-george-w-bush-the-iraq-crisis-10752
När USA i Irak diskuteras menar jag att man inte får bortse från att det är just den amerikanska politiska hanteringen av Irak som varit så katastrofal. Redan 2006 kom en lysande insiktsfull bok om detta:” Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone” av Washington Posts dåvarande Bagdad-korrespondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Den amerikanska militären skötte invasionen men sedan har politisk och diplomatisk inkompetens och då och då återfall till tilltro till militära medel styrt USAs politik. Detta är nu en i den amerikanska opinionen brett omfattad uppfattning, vilket innebär att det knappast finns amerikanskt opinionsstöd för militära insatser någonstans i världen med syfte att lösa politiska problem.
Min bedömning är att senator Rand Paul är talesman för en bred opinion när han skriver i Wall Street Journal om att USA inte ska ta ställning i det som idag är inbördeskriget i Irak:
” For the small group calling for boots on the ground—how can we ask our brave men and women to risk their lives for a country the Iraqis aren’t willing to fight for themselves?
Iraqi soldiers are stripping off their uniforms and fleeing this fight. We shouldn’t ask our soldiers to put their uniforms on to take their places. (—) David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a strong advocate for the Iraq war, said recently that ”the United States overestimated the threat from Saddam Hussein in 2003. Without an active nuclear-weapons program, he was not a danger beyond his immediate vicinity. That war cost this country dearly. The United States failed in its most ambitious objective: establishing a stable, Western-oriented government for all of Iraq.” He added that ”the government in Baghdad is not an American friend, and action against ISIS will not advance U.S. interests. Other advocates for the Iraq war need to examine the evidence and make rational decisions based on it. That’s something lacking throughout Washington. Leadership means admitting our mistakes so we can correct them. We will do ourselves no favors if we simply recommit to the same mistakes and heed the advice of those who made them in the first place.”