While I was idly surfing at work (what can I say? I had a few minutes of free time), I came across a post somewhere that compared the treatment of American soldiers in Baghdad with that of British soldiers in Basra. The reasons offered were a few of the expected straw men: British experience in occupying foreign countries (anti-British); incompetent, evil leadership at the very top (anti-Bush); inexperienced, frightened US soldiers (anti-military); arrogant American indifference to world opinion (anti-American), and a comparison to the intifada(anti-Israel).
None of the suggestions, of course, brought up the obvious: Basra is a Shi'ite majority city, and the Shi'ites were persecuted by Hussein's Sunni Baathists. Baghdad, on the other hand, is the home of the lion's share of the country's Sunni minority, and they were far less likely to have suffered under Saddam's tender ministrations. I've not seen any serious analysis of the motivations of the attackers; how many of them had ties to the deposed regime?
I am amazed at how hatred towards Americans (and their allies) and the military can cause one to totally miss the obvious answer when discussing cause and effect. I know that the far left hates America, but this seems to be another case of fabricating nefarious deeds out of thin air.
posted on June 18, 2003 07:17 PM
