That's an important point worth reiterating, as liberals in favor of "an alternative occupation" mistakenly believe that foreign soldiers of an army of occupation are kinder and gentler, less likely to kill civilians, than Iraqi insurgents are.
Langewiesche, however, goes on to say, "Tragically, this was not the necessary outcome of the American invasion" (January/February 2005). That just shows you that liberals are fundamentally racists who believe in the White Man's Burden, capable of thinking that "some of the blame [!] lies with the immaturity [!] and opportunism [!] of the Iraqi people [!]" (January/February 2005). They think that it is a mistake, rather than the nature, of Washington that it has not "humbly sought their [Iraqis'] support, respected their views of solutions, of political power, of American motivations, or of the history and future of Iraq" (January/February 2005).
Langewiesche thinks that "we" should have "explained ourselves honestly" (January/February 2005). There is no "we" in America, first of all, but liberals can't get it in their heads. Anyhow, Washington has explained its motive plainly enough: it wants Full Spectrum Dominance in all spheres of life, military, politics, and economy. It's been always the same goal at least since World War 2, if not earlier. The world, not just Iraqis, has heard it, and, except Washington's lackeys, no one has ever liked that, and no one will.
Thankfully, Washington no longer has economic supremacy to achieve its goal. Tragically, it seeks to compensate for its declining economic power by aggressive assertions of military power that may create Full Spectrum Disorder. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * "Proud of Britain": <http://www.proudofbritain.net/ > and <http://www.proud-of-britain.org.uk/>