Rosa Brooks' Los Angeles Times Opinion article "The walls around Bush's Iraq strategy" (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks20dec20,0,4654247.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail)
raises the issue of the Iraq's occupiers latest (and more successful) strategy for containing violence: building walls to divide communities in Baghdad. While keeping apart rival ethnic and religious groups, thus contributing to the decline in violence, the walls also serve to create "prisons" across Baghdad. Further, the walls segregate Iraqis from each other, thus aggravating the already prominent problem of warlords and sectarian strife in a nation already struggling to have a central government.Brooks concludes that, while the wall-building strategy successfully reduces violence, it may also contribute to am Iraq with indefinite US troop presence and a literally walled Iraq, which is clearly a sign of US failure in Iraq.
Tone: Critical.
Application: How is the literal walling of Iraq symbolic of US foreign policy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
reminds me of the Berlin wall, as u know, that too failed. Though the wall puts a boundary on violence, i feel it is only more likely going to make a collective violent assault. The US has extremely let me down, dividing other nations, What's next, another civil war?
Aggravating an already decadent endeavor, this article proves a point that the U.S. is just sinking deeper into the quick sand that is the War in Iraq. U.S. forces have already dealt vicious blows to Iraq throught the course of the war, and now they're segregating and confining innocent Iraqi civilians in their own homes. Altough the walls have aided in lowering death rates, they have also trapped Iraqi civilians as well as the U.S. in the effort to "better" Iraq.
This "walling in" strategy of the U.S. is prevalent througout its history in getting tangled with other countries. The U.S. "walled in" Vietnam in efforts to rid it of Communism and is now trying to "wall in" S. Korea by introducing U.S. goods into the economy.
NICE article you lifeless albino mokey!!!
That sounds like the Berlin wall. I don't think putting up a wall will solve any problems. It'll probably make everything worse. Segregating people into different sections is not a solution to the problem at hand. The US isn't making anything better by interfering(even more) with other peoples problems so I think it is time to give it a rest. This article sounds very interesting and now I think I'm going to read it. Thanks Sally!!
you should watch the current channel. there was this animated short where george w. got drunk and wished he was never born like the dude in its a wonderful life. richard nixon's ghost showed him what the world would be like if he was never president. it was hilarious. george clooney was prez and had achieved world peace by sleeping with all of the world leaders, laura bush was married to rosie o'donald because gay marriage was legal and dick cheney was a walmart greeter cuz halliburton got shut down.
this sounds like a horrible idea. putting up a wall would just instigate more violence. segregation is never the answer.
Obviously, this is the lack of consideration towards differential social and religious groups in Iraq, already victimized by American invasion of their land. I agree with Brooks belief that the creation of a wall, is futile, in terms of containing violence. The eradication of a wall, will only anticipate, a more rebellious and chaotic sense of order, due to the accumulation of mutual opposition, in the distinctive regions, attempted to pacify. Either way, violence can hardly be sustained inevitable, only set dormant.
Post a Comment