New York Times: Genocide In Iraq A Small Price To Pay For Ending Bush’s War
The New York Times has an editorial saying “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.” This is creating a lot of buzz, though why (as this has basically been the position of the Times editorial staff for some time now) is beyond me. But what’s interesting is that the Times makes this call despite admitting the following:
...Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.
The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.
So leaving Iraq could result in genocide (would, in my estimation). Iran would move in and set up a puppet regime run by the Shiite majority. The parliament and constitution created by the people of Iraq would be torn down. The country would become a rogue nation once again, riddled with camps of terrorists plotting and training for attacks against Israel and the west. The people of the country would be oppressed once again under the cruel practices of extremist Islam, and out of the chaos some new strongman like Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly arise (born of either Iranian sponsorship or fierce opposition to Iranian rule) to inflict his cruel will on Iraqis and the whole region.
And why? Because the ivory tower liberals at the New York Times think that’s preferable to continuing the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, training Iraqi security forces and working with the elected government of the Iraqi people (as imperfect as that government may be).
I don’t know about the rest of you, but that sort of reasoning leaves me feeling more than a little nauseated. For an editorial board that just a few months ago was bemoaning the lack of international action to stop genocide in Darfur, the Times sure doesn’t have any qualms about risking that same sort of genocide (though many orders of magnitude worse) in Iraq.
mmie
Kenny
Lioncourt
likwidshoe
gustave776
Justin B.
