Wednesday, October 25, 2006


In its yestreday´s editorial The New York Times addressed the current state of affairs the U.S. government faces in Iraq, where the question, it states, it is not so much “how America can win” but “whether the United States can extricate itself without leaving behind an unending civil war that will spread more chaos and suffering throughout the Middle East, while spawning terrorism across the globe”.

The NYT editorial was fair and accurate in saying that: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld should be removed from office; that it must be made clear that the United States will not keep permanent military bases in Iraq; that an amnesty for insurgents has to be provided; that it is required to transfer troops to Baghdad from elsewhere in the country so as to restore a minimum sanity; that an agreement must be reached among the countries in the region in order to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq and finally, and above all, that is essential to acknowledge reality due to “truth will only take us so far, but it is the right way to begin”.

As for the content, I hardly believe anyone could object what stated but I still think 3 things seem to have been left behind, namely:

1. America should not be military invading Iraq in the first place: as we all know today there was never a legitimate reason to do that.

2. The real reason behind this invasion it´s always been oil and nothing else: something that everybody is aware of now.

3. And finally, the estimated cost of war is 338 billion dollars so far, what does not leave too much room for a withdrawal of those who have always seen this as a financial transaction and therefore seek earnings from their investment.

Hence I think that stop the war in Iraq possibly implied in the first place remove from power those that started off this mess.
As simple as it might sound: somebody once said truth does not have to be expressed with baroque words, especially when everybody knows it.


Post a Comment

<< Home