Ted Galen Carpenter: Bush Misreads History
Further to the question of whether Cato has anything more to say about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I wish to refer readers to Ted Galen Carpenter’s most recent article in the Orange County Register, where he reiterates his opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the desirability for the U.S. to pull out sooner rather than later.
Drum roll, please, for Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who, after returning from one of several trips to Iraq, said:"We should start figuring out how we get out of there. Our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur." I hope those who wish the U.S. to stay on in Iraq will read and consider his remarks.
What many of us would now like to hear is the timetable that Carpenter thinks is appropriate. And what do readers of Liberty & Power think? Immediate withdrawal? Total withdrawal by the end of this year? Total withdrawal by the end of 2006?
comments powered by Disqus
Justin Raimondo - 10/3/2005
I agree with the above comment, with this proviso: the U.S. must compensate the families of those killed by American bombs and other acts of "collateral damage."
Keith Halderman - 10/2/2005
I think the troops should be pulled out as quickly as possible with only consideration as to time being their safety. No one should have to die just to make George Bush look a little better. The only possible winner of this war will be Iran.
David T. Beito - 10/2/2005
My pro-war friends keep claiming that we have "won" or are "winning." Perhaps this claim could be used a fig-leaf for them to pull out the troops e.g. they "are no longer needed." I'll let them use any argument they want.
If I could push the button Leonard Read style for immediate withdrawal, I would. Since this wnon't happen, I would be satisfied by any or your alternative dates. Of course, that is not likely to happen either.
Sudha Shenoy - 10/1/2005
Bush & others invaded Iraq principally for domestic political reasons. Withdrawal will occur when it achieves maximum political benefit domestically, or minimises political damage. What is needed is some excuse which can present withdrawal as a great American triumph. Can this be concocted & sold to the real decision-makers in Washinton? (It requires more grasp of US politics than I have.)
- Five Things You Need to Know to be a Better Digital Preservationist
- Book on Losing British Generals Wins American History Prize
- Stanford scholar explores civil rights revolution's positive impact on the South's economy
- Harvard Historian Nancy Koehn on Amazon's Tentacular Reach
- Q&A with historian and author Nick Turse