My Thinking About Iraq
Iraq is a hot button issue in American politics these days. Judging by the Presidential candidates, there are two main view:
That of Clinton and Obama, that the US forces need to get the heck out, and that right fast;
and that of McCain, that the US forces are in for a long hard slog.
My thought is this:
Going there 5 years ago was the wrong thing to do. It was the wrong war, at the wrong time. Bush squandered all sorts of world-wide goodwill and good feelings that accrued to the US after 9/11, and fouled up a perfectly good coalition that was fighting in Afghanistan, and he did because Saddam was a bad man who'd made his daddy look bad.
How mature of our President. And we re-elected that bonehead.
Personally, I think that the US would be far better off today, and I said this in 2003, if the Bush Administration had sent 1/2 of the Iraq resources in men, material, and money to Afghanistan and actually did the job he said the US would do there. You know, the nation building, and all that. Maybe then the current Afghan government would rule more than Kabul.
Do I think that Iraq should have been ignored? Well, no actually, I don't. But I do think that Bush could have gotten the Brits, and the Aussies, and the UN, and the whole world to go along with immeasurably tightening the sanctions on Iraq: the no-fly zones, the trade sanctions, etc, and forced his way in, without a major war, to find out the truth about the WMDs.
Instead, he swallowed Saddam's bluff, and invaded. Now we can see what's going on.
So now the US is in Iraq, and the question is, do we stay or do we go? Hard choice. Bush says it's better to fight "the terrorists" over there than over here, and I agree, but what are we doing to secure the borders? The TSA is joke, the border with Mexico is wide open, and there's nothing anyone is doing about it.
So what do we do? Do we leave Iraq? Well, that will tell the terrorists that they've won, and I'm pretty sure they'll just find a way to hit the US again, because they know that the US won't stay in the fight for the full 10 rounds. And for now, they won't stop fighting in Iraq because they know that even if the US does stay, the Iraqi government is weak, and, in the eyes of Iraqis, illegitimate. Check out this article for details.
I think that Moqtada al-Sadr just proved last week that, despite the "surge," the insurgent forces really control the pace of violence in Iraq. It's a scary thought. What did all those US troops go there for?
Well, they did do some good. When the buildup started last year, combined with more aggressive counterinsurgency tactics, they forced (relative) quiet on the country. The Iraqi al-Qaida guys were mostly beaten, and the al-Sadr militias backed away from the fight. But now that the US troops are starting to scale back down, here come the al-Sadr guys to fight. And they've just shown that the Iraqi Prime Minister, al-Maliki, is really just the mayor of Baghdad.
So what's the answer? We've just been given notice that whenever the US forces leave, "the terrorists" that Bush is so scared of are going to take over, with bloodshed. It's clear that the Iraqi government which Bush has tried so hard to promote can't stand on its own, and its equally clear that most Americans don't want to spend 100 years holding it up.
So can we set the wayback machine to 2003, now, Sherman?
That of Clinton and Obama, that the US forces need to get the heck out, and that right fast;
and that of McCain, that the US forces are in for a long hard slog.
My thought is this:
Going there 5 years ago was the wrong thing to do. It was the wrong war, at the wrong time. Bush squandered all sorts of world-wide goodwill and good feelings that accrued to the US after 9/11, and fouled up a perfectly good coalition that was fighting in Afghanistan, and he did because Saddam was a bad man who'd made his daddy look bad.
How mature of our President. And we re-elected that bonehead.
Personally, I think that the US would be far better off today, and I said this in 2003, if the Bush Administration had sent 1/2 of the Iraq resources in men, material, and money to Afghanistan and actually did the job he said the US would do there. You know, the nation building, and all that. Maybe then the current Afghan government would rule more than Kabul.
Do I think that Iraq should have been ignored? Well, no actually, I don't. But I do think that Bush could have gotten the Brits, and the Aussies, and the UN, and the whole world to go along with immeasurably tightening the sanctions on Iraq: the no-fly zones, the trade sanctions, etc, and forced his way in, without a major war, to find out the truth about the WMDs.
Instead, he swallowed Saddam's bluff, and invaded. Now we can see what's going on.
So now the US is in Iraq, and the question is, do we stay or do we go? Hard choice. Bush says it's better to fight "the terrorists" over there than over here, and I agree, but what are we doing to secure the borders? The TSA is joke, the border with Mexico is wide open, and there's nothing anyone is doing about it.
So what do we do? Do we leave Iraq? Well, that will tell the terrorists that they've won, and I'm pretty sure they'll just find a way to hit the US again, because they know that the US won't stay in the fight for the full 10 rounds. And for now, they won't stop fighting in Iraq because they know that even if the US does stay, the Iraqi government is weak, and, in the eyes of Iraqis, illegitimate. Check out this article for details.
I think that Moqtada al-Sadr just proved last week that, despite the "surge," the insurgent forces really control the pace of violence in Iraq. It's a scary thought. What did all those US troops go there for?
Well, they did do some good. When the buildup started last year, combined with more aggressive counterinsurgency tactics, they forced (relative) quiet on the country. The Iraqi al-Qaida guys were mostly beaten, and the al-Sadr militias backed away from the fight. But now that the US troops are starting to scale back down, here come the al-Sadr guys to fight. And they've just shown that the Iraqi Prime Minister, al-Maliki, is really just the mayor of Baghdad.
So what's the answer? We've just been given notice that whenever the US forces leave, "the terrorists" that Bush is so scared of are going to take over, with bloodshed. It's clear that the Iraqi government which Bush has tried so hard to promote can't stand on its own, and its equally clear that most Americans don't want to spend 100 years holding it up.
So can we set the wayback machine to 2003, now, Sherman?
posted by carl r at
7:16 AM
5 Comments:
Check out Michael's post (Oleh Musings) about this, its a good rundown from an Israeli's perspective.
I agree, it could have been handled much better initially. And the cause & effect of our presence is clear, albeit unfortunate.
You make a good point about our local efforts being scant!
thanks for the visit..flu bug is still bitin me..ha
I don't know how to get out either. If we haul ass, then we look weak and Iraq becomes a failed state which will serve as a breeding ground for terrorists. If we stay, we just go on bleeding to death, year after year. I voted for Bush twice, for lack of a better choice, and look at this shit. Now this time, I'm not going to vote for McCain just because the other side sucks even worse. I'm sitting the next election out.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the TV Digital, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://tv-digital-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
Carl i agree with you majority of your posting. The part that I fell off was when your are basically saying that we should stay in Iraq to not look like cowards. But dont u think that we are there a little to long and we are not solving anything but making it worst for the Iraqis? Personally I think we should have never been there in the first place and we should get out of there as soon as possible. Drop by my page and view my posting on this similar problem.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home