It's called "Getting out in front of the narrative before the narrative turns to shit." Because there's a very real chance, one day down the road, that the people who were supposed to greet us as liberators will end up being governed by a gang of radical Islamists. They didn't even exist in Iraq before we invaded, and now they control whole regions of the country. And if/when Iraq falls to the Islamists, there are going to be a lot of people asking how this could have happened, and the default explanation that many people in our foreign-policy establishment will offer---and we know this will happen because they do it every time---will be that Iraq was "lost" because of peaceniks and appeasers and Neville Chamberlain in the White House who pulled out all the troops. This argument could be pre-empted if we held hearings and required the persons who created this mess in the first place to testify, under oath, exactly what they were thinking when they gaslighted an entire nation into waging a needless war, and why they ignored the warnings of the people---who turned out to be right---that war could plunge the region into complete and utter chaos. In other words, it's not only smart policy, but smart politics to have done this. So why on earth haven't we done this?
---Baron V
Comments