What I was wrong about in March, 2003
Posted by Raznor
Brian Flemming has an interesting challenge for bloggers, look back into the archives from March, 2003 and find out what we were wrong about. For me this was an interesting trip down memory lane. Here's what I've determined by looking at my archives from March, 2003.
1) I was a much more avid blogger when this blog was still new.
2) But this was partially because I was used to reading huge amounts for college. I am stunned by how many articles I was reading back then. Plus I was treading through long comments threads at Alas, A Blog. I just don't read as much since college ended.
3) My html skillz sucked. They still aren't that good, but man, 3 years ago? Terrible.
Anyway, there was one thing that I was particularly wrong about. It was here where I was predicting what victory in Iraq would bring:
Of course, what ended up happening is we neither really "won" nor "lost" but are still bogged down in a long occupation. But I was right about Al Qaeda. And I think the next paragraph was damn spot on, and really remarkably candid. (really, I'm impressed with 21-year-old me)
If Iraq had managed to repel our invasion, the fallout would have been immeasurably damaging, but I can't imagine it being significantly worse than the indefinite occupation and drain on our resources we're seeing now in Iraq.
Brian Flemming has an interesting challenge for bloggers, look back into the archives from March, 2003 and find out what we were wrong about. For me this was an interesting trip down memory lane. Here's what I've determined by looking at my archives from March, 2003.
1) I was a much more avid blogger when this blog was still new.
2) But this was partially because I was used to reading huge amounts for college. I am stunned by how many articles I was reading back then. Plus I was treading through long comments threads at Alas, A Blog. I just don't read as much since college ended.
3) My html skillz sucked. They still aren't that good, but man, 3 years ago? Terrible.
Anyway, there was one thing that I was particularly wrong about. It was here where I was predicting what victory in Iraq would bring:
ut what if we win? Al Qaeda will get at least as many new recruits than from the loss, we're now proven to be on a Crusade. We'll likely use the victory to spur us onto more Imperial conquest of Syria and Egypt and Iran. Soon we'll be occupying, and we'll lose a lot of men for it, and acts of terrorism against the citizens of the US would likely reach unimaginable levels. We'll likely be at war with Turkey to keep them out of northen Iraq, and don't forget that we'll lose a lot of service men and women in occupying hostile territory. And if we keep attacking nation after nation, and I would not put it past the Administration to do so, if we keep getting victory after victory, our Empire will grow, and the greater the Empire the more unstable, and it will fall if history is an indicator.
Of course, what ended up happening is we neither really "won" nor "lost" but are still bogged down in a long occupation. But I was right about Al Qaeda. And I think the next paragraph was damn spot on, and really remarkably candid. (really, I'm impressed with 21-year-old me)
So maybe the best course we could reasonably hope for is a loss in this war. Something that will slap awake the American populace. Make us realize that war is never clean, it's a messy endeavor. Maybe, if that happens, a loss in this war will save more people than the war will destroy.
If Iraq had managed to repel our invasion, the fallout would have been immeasurably damaging, but I can't imagine it being significantly worse than the indefinite occupation and drain on our resources we're seeing now in Iraq.