It seems there are two schools of thought on how to properly deal with Iraq:
- Kill them with kindness.
- Kill them.
I'm being overly glib here, but you know what I mean. Proponents of the former say that by wielding too heavy a hand, the population as a whole will turn against us. Proponents of the latter say that restraint on our part is interpreted by the Iraqis as weakness and encourages the insurgents.
I know this is the superficialest (is that even a word? it is now) of the many superficial takes I've expressed here, but the point I'm trying to make is this: we seem to be going back and forth between the two. Why, then, are we always wrong when we do either?
Actually, doing both are not incompatable with each other and may be the overall best approach. Where there is peace, even though there may be opposition, kill them with kindness. Where there is violence just kill them.
As you pointed out, we'll be wrong no matter what we do so we aren't really being constrained there. Are we?
Yep, I wish we'd quit worrying about perception and just get it done.
We are always wrong because killing is wrong. Didn't you learn that in Peacelovedope 101 at college?
John,
That was an elective at Michigan State; I took Military Science 121 instead (really!).
"I'll take "kill them" for 400, Chris!"
The answer is:
"Of mosques, hospitals, or orphanages, they are the sites splodeydopes do not use as bases to attack Coalition forces."
"What are "None of the above" Chris?"