Prime Minister Gordon Brown testified that he supported and still supports the war in Iraq, but only wished it had an exit strategy or a reconstruction strategy that actually gained the favor of the Iraqi people. Although a step forward from what the neoconservatives of the past decade vehemently supported in the U.S., Mr. Brown’s justification for the war from the start was declaring that Iraq was a threat that “had to be dealt with.” At this rate, the United States and its singular Western ally can call anything a “threat” and “deal with it.”
Threats do not necessarily need a massive invasion or quasi- military occupation. If Saddam Hussein was a threat and his people were not, couldn’t a simple Delta Force operation “deal” with him? Can’t a Delta Force, Navy Seal, or Spec. Ops. team deal with any terrorist cell better than a standing army can, twiddling its thumbs in open desert, angering the indigenous population? Mr. Brown was right — there was no exit strategy; however, there was no real strategy to begin with and what Gordon Brown fails to admit is that there was no overall strategy because the war in Iraq was essentially an expansion of the American empire, adding just another one of our global military bases to the collection of over 700 that we have right now.
There was no strategy or exit strategy because, I fear, the plan was to simply dump American troops in another location and leave them there as a showcase of American hard power.Published in