After hearing Tony Blair whining that the current mess doesn't have anything to do with the lying that got us into the war and the mindlessness that followed. At least someone else articulates my own thoughts so much better than I can, Rachel Shabi
It seems there is no limit to an interventionist's capacity for self-delusion over the Middle East. As Iraqis are caught in an escalating crisis of utter terror, turmoil and devastation unleashed as a direct consequence of the US-led invasion of 2003, some neo-cons and unabashed British Blairites are now suggesting that more US-led military action might help. In other words - and to paraphrase Michael Franti's Spearhead - having bombed Iraq into pieces, the idea is that we can now somehow bomb it back into peace.
Always more bombs, always more blood, and always the same result.
Meanwhile, Britain's 2003-war-mongering ex-prime minister Tony Blair is sticking to the line that his illegal, unnecessary war in Iraq is not the cause of the misery, deaths and despair since and that somehow things could have been even worse without this invasion
Lies before, during and after, how can any of them be taken seriously any more?
And today, just as in 2003, there is no follow-through to these military suggestions. What would happen after any such airstrikes - even assuming these strikes were miraculously well targeted and effective? After years of precipitating insurgency, would Western military action suddenly have the reverse effect? Would ISIL then wave white flags instead of black and slink away, never to return? Has such a tactic sustainably worked in Iraq over the past 10 years? Of course not. Now, as before, the building of an all-inclusive, power-sharing, accountable and non-corrupt governance is the way to stop fuelling and facilitating turmoil in the long-term.
Bolding is mine.
Now as before it's just; we must do something and apparently the easiest way is to do anything is to bomb. So we end up supporting a pro-Iranian Iraqi government that is determined to exclude all but their own.
The neocons answer was to invade, now their answer was we should have stayed forever to prop up whatever it was we created. The same thing goes for Afghanistan which started as vengeance and ended up as occupation and the Taliban are still there.
The result of our invasions, bombing and slaughter seems to be the creation of ever more extreme groups and increased sectarianism. This means that our neoconservatives [and others] demand that we are more and more violent in response to our own failings.
So on one hand we have violent blood thirsty murders and on the the other we have violent blood thirsty murderers. This logic makes sense if you have drunk too much turpentine I suppose. Kill for peace, lather rinse repeat and if you kill enough maybe you have peace but there is the possibility nobody will be left around to appreciate this new found tranquility.
Perhaps when your first thoughts are to bomb, kill and maim you might want to let others take over because as sure as eggs are eggs you will be bombing, killing and maiming yet again.
Have we learnt nothing from our past interference in the region? Oh right, oil.