Monday, July 07, 2003
Re: Indians in Iraq
Regarding our soldiers under their command scenario:
Well, as bad as it seems at the first glance, there is a nuance here that is worth noting. I am going to go thru a rounded argument here - for argument's sake. Let me make clear that this could be the way the Uncle wants us to look at it.
1. We are not going to take part in combat operations in Iraq (at least not technically). We are going to be there as multinational peace keeping force.
2. This force is created as an alternative to an UN peace keeping force, the acceptability of which is seriously hampered because it would seriously question the authority of US over Iraq as an occupying power.
3. Thus, we should really be looking at it like we would look at any UN (which, after all, is just one of the multinational governmental entities) force.
Now, IMHO, this argument does not really sound convincing enuf. Question is, where is the pitfall in this sweet argument?
Reg the MacDonald report:
Sure, the Uncle (gee, I really like this term!) is pretty capable of once in a while nitpricks like this. But let's face it, if we want (and here I mean them too) cooperation on the ground, it's just a necessity that we iron out such problems at an early stage. It's not really a question of saying "it's really upto them". It sounds like nice rhetoric to say that they could go to Rawalpindi. But remember, we are also wooing them. Let's not get carried away here.
Comments: Post a Comment