Friday, July 20, 2012

Neoconservative Fallacies in Aggressive Foreign Policy (part 2)

By Zach Foster, resident writer of A Blogging Spot

Al Qaeda certainly needed to be punished for the horrific 9/11 terror attacks and much of the world agreed, but having hundreds of military bases in over a hundred countries didn’t stop the attacks from occurring.  Furthermore, invading Iraq plus getting involved in Libya, Syria, and central Africa isn’t doing much for national security. Both parties in government like spending more money than they take in and both started or got our country involved in wars we didn’t need to fight. Anyone is free to ask any Iraq or Afghan war veteran if he or she really think the Iraqis or Afghans will figure out and embrace democracy and human rights anytime soon, and the response will most likely be “No.”

Many neoconservatives attempt to justify the Iraq and Afghan wars (as well as the African sideshows) by comparing them to the First Barbary War or to World War II.  Their logic is faulty at best as the nature of the centuries-past conflict differs greatly.  The First Barbary War (1801-1805) was initiated after semi-independent sultans of the Ottoman Empire’s buffer states had been authorizing pirates to kidnap…

Source: A Blogging Spot

No comments:

Post a Comment