American power
I was as appalled by the reports (getting worse by the day) of American (and possibly British) forces' brutality in Iraq. Thus I welcome President Bush's remarks on an Arabic TV channel today.Hang on. What was that? The President of the United States has gone on an Arabic TV channel to explain the behaviour of his armed forces? It's gets better. National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice expressed the United States' "deep sorrow over the US troops' abuses against the Iraqi prisoners".
I know this is a different kind of war, and thus humanitarian concerns naturally are higher than in other wars. But I do wonder if in pushing the liberation angle so much in this war President Bush might have set a terrible precedent (from the US military's point of view) for limitations on the way in which future US presidents can conduct other ones.
Oh well it doesn't seem a bad outcome at the moment.
Ps: I wrote this in a hurry and it's a little unclear. I think what I'm trying to say is when a real crisis comes along, for example North Korea or Taiwan, will the US feel similarly constrained? I'm coming around to the view that armed forces should have a clear, defined role of protecting the country from external threats (however defined) and a separate body, a sort of cross between the police and the army (military police?) should deal with nation-building.
posted by Matthew @ 5/05/2004 06:19:00 PM
Comments: 0
