Ask The Experts

"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," sez Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Donald H. was taken to task subsequent to these remarks by two who oughta know: Hammerin' Hank Kissinger, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Zbiggy even went so far as to call H. Rumsfeld bat-shit loony-tunes: "That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history."

So how did the two experts demonstrate their expert knowledge of history?

Kissinger: "In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement."

Brzezinski: "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

In other words, Rumsfeld is correct, according to our expert nay-sayers, in assigning the German role to Iraq. Correct, even though any six-year-old child could tell you that it was the United States that launched an unprovoked invasion, and not the other way around.

What Kissinger and Brzezinski (or at any rate the latter, who at least has in recent years demonstrated something of a capacity for logical thinking) should have said is that "turning our backs" on post-war Iraq to-day would be the modern equivalent of handing post-war France back to the French. And, further, that withdrawal doesn't have to equal "turning our backs": we ought, in addition, to pay reparations to our victims; just as Iraq itself is still paying reparations to Kuwait.

This is almost too obvious to even waste time posting about. But if CNN can let it pass without comment, perhaps it's not quite too obvious.

Posted by Eddie Tews at March 20, 2006 02:35 PM