The neocon comic Commentary magazine today carries an article by Alana Goodman in which she analogises Bush’s exploits in Iraq with Obama and his actions in Libya. She writes:
You would think President Obama’s recent choice to take military action in Libya would have made him slightly more understanding of President Bush’s decision to intervene in Iraq.
Bush intervened in Iraq?
Bush didn’t intervene in Iraq; he invaded it and thus destroyed it!
And therein lays the difference. Obama intervened in Libya in order to prevent a bloodbath, or, at least, that was the UNs intention, whereas Bush invaded Iraq and ended up creating a bloodbath and did so for the sole purpose of protecting the interests of Israel and the policies of the neoconservatives in his administration. Bush had not a skerrick of humanitarian intent when he decided to invade Iraq on 11 September 2001.
Also in Commentary magazine today is this garbage from vocal neocon Max Boot who wants to put a “peacekeeping” force on the ground in Libya if and when Gaddafi goes or is otherwise removed from the equation, in order to “stabilize the situation in Libya after Qaddafi’s eventual downfall”.
Boot goes on to write:
This is an administration that is filled, after all, with critics of the Iraq War where, it is widely conceded, we paid a heavy price for not doing more to prepare for Saddam Hussein’s downfall. Tommy Franks, Donald Rumsfeld, and others later claimed we were wrong-footed by our “catastrophic success,” meaning we were not prepared for the Baathist regime to collapse as quickly or completely as it did. Yet what are we doing to prepare for a similar eventuality in Libya where Qaddafi could be killed in an airstrike tomorrow? Is the coalition now enforcing a no-fly zone prepared to do something on the ground to ease Libya’s transition, or will we just wash our hands of the place and hope for the best?
No, Max; first off, it was the Iraqi people that paid the heavy price. Secondly, once Gaddafi is gone, then that should be the endgame as far as the Americans are concerned; it is for the Libyans. The Libyan people are then quite capable of looking after their own affairs. The last thing they want is anyone from the West looking over their shoulders. The Libyans want self-determination – without interference from the West.
That’s the problem with neocons; they’re so arrogant that they actually believe that the Arab people want them there to hold their hands as they create their own futures.
How delusional can these neocons get?