by CKR
Zalmay Khalilzad says that toppling Saddam opened Pandora's box in Iraq. He also says that, as a result, the United States must "stay the course" there, although he didn't use those words.
Khalilzad is the US ambassador to Iraq, although given recent history, he is acting as much more than ambassador, while not carrying all Paul Bremer's powers as proconsul. He is taking an activist role with the new government, pressing strongly for US objectives, or at least the best that can be done in a bad situation.
He also was part of the neocon crowd that lusted after regime change in the Middle East. Now he sees that if Iraq flies apart in a civil war, the fire may spread to other countries in the region. A contagion of chaos, rather than the spreading of democracy that they believed would follow Saddam's toppling. Khalilzad now sees the possibility of chaos that opponents of the war warned about before the war.
His bottom line is the President's: the US must stay in Iraq.
Given all the changes in story by the administration, given the willingness to manipulate the intelligence on WMD in Iraq, given the unwillingness to believe that looting is a bad thing, how do we now evaluate his words? Is this another way to continue the terrible policies of regime change with no plan for the people? Is the chaos no more real than Condoleezza Rice's mushroom cloud?
How do we see through the fog of lies?
Comments