Martin Luther King, Jr. on Vietnam; Iraq
It's Martin Luther King Day, and other people doubtless have more eloquent things to say about it than I could come up with. But when it comes to eloquence, no one tops the man himself. So here, via FireDogLake, is Martin Luther King (audio only) speaking about the war. Vietnam, then. It's hard to imagine he wouldn't have similar things to say about Iraq now, had he lived.
[MLK on Vietnam - direct link]
Today Revere remembers three other civil rights martyrs, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, with help from Frances Taylor and Pete Seeger.
***
It doesn't seem so off-topic to turn from Vietnam to Iraq. Here is some striking Iraq reporting and commentary, much of it via Juan Cole, who tops the set. In Misreading the Enemy, Cole talks about how Bush has crucially misjudged the character of the conflict(s) in Iraq. He says the clashes between Sunnis and Shiites are really clashes between clans, which demand mutual defense and revenge from their members.
A Guardian reporter reports from the inside on how the Sunni "insurgency" has changed. The Shiite Mahdi Army is assuming a lower profile in advance of the U.S. troop increase; it doesn't mean they're going away.
Fareed Zakaria is one of those saying that Bush's strategy of targetting the Sunni insurgeny may well succeed; but he says that would also be disastrous:
The greatest danger of Bush's new strategy, then, isn't that it won't work but that it will-and thereby push the country one step further along the road to all-out civil war. Only a sustained strategy of pressure on the Maliki government-unlike anything Bush has been willing to do yet-has any chance of averting this outcome.
Otherwise, American interests and ideals will both be in jeopardy. Al Qaeda in Iraq-the one true national-security threat we face from that country-will gain Sunni support. In addition, as American officers like Duke and Brady have noted, our ideals will be tarnished. The U.S. Army will be actively aiding and assisting in the largest program of ethnic cleansing since Bosnia. Is that the model Bush wanted for the Middle East?
Almost since the beginning, hawks have accused us anti-war people of hoping the U.S. will "lose" in Iraq. If "winning" means we facilitate ethnic cleansing, then yes, I do hope we lose.
As for all those "disloyal" "misguided" people who were pushed out for pointing out all the mistakes we were making in Iraq as we made them, nearly four years ago? The Bush administration is now going, hey guys, can you help us go fix it plz?
(Iran sidebar: What this guy says. *nods vigorously*)
[MLK on Vietnam - direct link]
Today Revere remembers three other civil rights martyrs, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, with help from Frances Taylor and Pete Seeger.
***
It doesn't seem so off-topic to turn from Vietnam to Iraq. Here is some striking Iraq reporting and commentary, much of it via Juan Cole, who tops the set. In Misreading the Enemy, Cole talks about how Bush has crucially misjudged the character of the conflict(s) in Iraq. He says the clashes between Sunnis and Shiites are really clashes between clans, which demand mutual defense and revenge from their members.
A Guardian reporter reports from the inside on how the Sunni "insurgency" has changed. The Shiite Mahdi Army is assuming a lower profile in advance of the U.S. troop increase; it doesn't mean they're going away.
Fareed Zakaria is one of those saying that Bush's strategy of targetting the Sunni insurgeny may well succeed; but he says that would also be disastrous:
The greatest danger of Bush's new strategy, then, isn't that it won't work but that it will-and thereby push the country one step further along the road to all-out civil war. Only a sustained strategy of pressure on the Maliki government-unlike anything Bush has been willing to do yet-has any chance of averting this outcome.
Otherwise, American interests and ideals will both be in jeopardy. Al Qaeda in Iraq-the one true national-security threat we face from that country-will gain Sunni support. In addition, as American officers like Duke and Brady have noted, our ideals will be tarnished. The U.S. Army will be actively aiding and assisting in the largest program of ethnic cleansing since Bosnia. Is that the model Bush wanted for the Middle East?
Almost since the beginning, hawks have accused us anti-war people of hoping the U.S. will "lose" in Iraq. If "winning" means we facilitate ethnic cleansing, then yes, I do hope we lose.
As for all those "disloyal" "misguided" people who were pushed out for pointing out all the mistakes we were making in Iraq as we made them, nearly four years ago? The Bush administration is now going, hey guys, can you help us go fix it plz?
(Iran sidebar: What this guy says. *nods vigorously*)