Iraq the one the only time I'm going to dicuss it
I have made it my policy to stay out of national politics and stay on the topic of local and state politics. I simply can not keep quiet on this subject anymore. We have reached the point where no rational unbiased observer can say Iraq is in some way leading to anywhere but to this countries determent. It is getting worse not better. It's a situation that is worse than Vietnam and we are having non-fatal causalities that are 3 times that of the first 4 years of the Vietnam war and Fatal causalities that are 157% of the first 4 years in Vietnam.
Regardless of what the Bush adm and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (who at this point is nothing more than a puppet of the bush adm and knows he will be killed as soon as the us leaves therefore will never ask us to go.) continue to imply things in Iraq are not improve and there is already a festering civil war in iraq, based on vengeance and hatred of the Sunnis by the Shites and Kurds and equal retaliation by the sunnis in tit for tat ethnic cleansing. Which our troops are now sitting in the middle of, which looks like it will not let up for years or generations.
This leads to the question why does Bush Refuse to leave Iraq this is not about the betterment of the Us but about a Neo-con ideology that has lead us down this path of disaster. This ideology is neither conservative nor New smacking more of the idea of extremist Liberalism (one of the uses of the word not the same meaning as the current usage) of the "White man's Burden" ideology a rather twisted self justification of theft, and murder. More or less the Bush adm was trying to Missionize democracy on the middle east in return for access to oil for the Iraqis own good at the point of a gun. As, with the "civilizing of the "savages" of America this is never at the locals benefit. This ideology couple with deranged absolutism of a dry drunk who refuses to admit he has ever made a mistake. Very simply more American troops are going to die and we are going to blow more treasure in iraq because we have a deranged president that simply is more interested in his place in history than the country itself coupled with an ideology of absolutism that mirrors that of the most fundamentalists of religious ideology.
Resulting in what we have now an Administration that refuses to admit it made a mistake and a situation that there is no good way out of . If we leave now Iraq will plunge into a 20 year blood bath, dragging in the rest of the middle east. If we stay we continue to stand in the center of a very hot civil war laced with Ethnic overtones. In this case which is worse than Vietnam because there is no one to trust and anyone could stab us in the back. We are also entering the proverbial year of chaos that sent Vietnam into the death spiral, that it became. We maybe simply prolonging the inevitable chaos that our action have caused. Even if we stay another 10 years or 20 yrs. I don't' think it will change anything other than point the Iraqis frustration more at us and increasing the likely hood we will be attacked at home. The only truthful thing Bush has said is there will be not be a Graceful exit from Iraq. I agree that option has long passed when we leave it will be messy and horrible.
Regardless of what the Bush adm and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (who at this point is nothing more than a puppet of the bush adm and knows he will be killed as soon as the us leaves therefore will never ask us to go.) continue to imply things in Iraq are not improve and there is already a festering civil war in iraq, based on vengeance and hatred of the Sunnis by the Shites and Kurds and equal retaliation by the sunnis in tit for tat ethnic cleansing. Which our troops are now sitting in the middle of, which looks like it will not let up for years or generations.
This leads to the question why does Bush Refuse to leave Iraq this is not about the betterment of the Us but about a Neo-con ideology that has lead us down this path of disaster. This ideology is neither conservative nor New smacking more of the idea of extremist Liberalism (one of the uses of the word not the same meaning as the current usage) of the "White man's Burden" ideology a rather twisted self justification of theft, and murder. More or less the Bush adm was trying to Missionize democracy on the middle east in return for access to oil for the Iraqis own good at the point of a gun. As, with the "civilizing of the "savages" of America this is never at the locals benefit. This ideology couple with deranged absolutism of a dry drunk who refuses to admit he has ever made a mistake. Very simply more American troops are going to die and we are going to blow more treasure in iraq because we have a deranged president that simply is more interested in his place in history than the country itself coupled with an ideology of absolutism that mirrors that of the most fundamentalists of religious ideology.
Resulting in what we have now an Administration that refuses to admit it made a mistake and a situation that there is no good way out of . If we leave now Iraq will plunge into a 20 year blood bath, dragging in the rest of the middle east. If we stay we continue to stand in the center of a very hot civil war laced with Ethnic overtones. In this case which is worse than Vietnam because there is no one to trust and anyone could stab us in the back. We are also entering the proverbial year of chaos that sent Vietnam into the death spiral, that it became. We maybe simply prolonging the inevitable chaos that our action have caused. Even if we stay another 10 years or 20 yrs. I don't' think it will change anything other than point the Iraqis frustration more at us and increasing the likely hood we will be attacked at home. The only truthful thing Bush has said is there will be not be a Graceful exit from Iraq. I agree that option has long passed when we leave it will be messy and horrible.
posted by Greendogdem at
7:13 PM
3 Comments:
From www.WinTheGWOT.org
You're right about the fact that if we pull out now, we're in for a long term problem, but if we stay in the same way that we have, we'll get nowhere either.
Anne Gearan’s Associated Press article on December 2, 2006 “US rethinking Iraqi unification goal” indicates that President Bush is stepping up his personal role in the Iraqi political situation in an attempt to bring stability there. The article also hints at something quite ominous that other media sources have begun discussing of late. That is, the potential for the US choosing factional sides and the possible exclusion of Sunnis from further political attempts at bringing them into a more cooperative and diverse government. This would be a strategic mistake with tragic consequences. Fortunately, President Bush intends to meet with the Sunni Vice President next month to ensure that no such signal is officially sent—at least not yet.
Excluding the minority Sunnis would be a mistake for many reasons. First, regardless of past events and their minority status, it would further legitimize them as enemies to the majority groups and leave them even more vulnerable to oppression and neglect from the new government and their fellow Iraqis. Not all Sunnis are enemies of the new Iraqi government today, but if excluded they would likely become so when lacking any alternative.
Conversely, not all Shiite (and other) groups are friendly to the Iraqi government, so granting them some sort of blanket political status in comparison to a Sunni rejection would create a dangerous environment for some of our key allies in the region. Sunnis in Jordan and the majority Sunni population in Saudi Arabia, which does not necessarily support its own Wahhabist rulers, could interpret this action as an attack on Sunnis as a whole. This would compel them actively support their brethren in Iraq and expand the conflict and possibly destabilize other countries. External aid to Sunnis would increase Iran’s motivation to support the Shiites and a regional conflict could spin out of control, necessitating further US military involvement.
Rather, the US and Iraqi governments must identify the areas of support they already have, regardless of ethic or religious faction, and work to provide safety and security in those locations. This may only be a small portion of the country at first, but it is easiest to start there and build a legitimate working system that demonstrates how the government can effectively work for all groups in Iraq. The emphasis should be to build local police who are not corrupt and who respect diversity and Human Rights—that is, police who have a stake in the success of the local community. They are the primary counterinsurgents. Iraqi military forces should be used to help protect them and the people in these select areas and to fight the insurgents elsewhere whenever practical. It is critical that investments be made in these areas to increase employment and public services, and that are available to all members of the community.
The US and Iraqi governments should work with Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, to obtain overall support and a commitment to reduce the amount of external arms and influence entering Iraq and bolstering the anti-government forces. It will not be easy, but it must occur.
As the protected and properly governed areas begin to prosper and the new Iraqi government builds relationships of trust within the general population, it can then begin expanding its influence outward and reduce the effectiveness and popularity of the anti-government forces and insurgents. To attempt to do this to the entire country at once is folly—the current Iraqi forces bolstered by 140,000 US troops have demonstrated that much already.
Once these “protected” areas are identified and troops are put into position, the US can reduce its forces by about 80%, leaving approximately 28,000 troops or 9 carefully chosen brigades to support the Iraqi led effort. US Special Forces advisor/trainers could work to help professionalize the police and military while US brigades capable of rapid deployment and reaction to specific crises could be stationed outside of the main population centers. This would reduce the US presence without completely eliminating our ability to protect our own troops and support the Iraqi government.
This is the true definition of the “long war” we have been hearing about for so long, and one can only hope that the Iraq Study Group presents some similar plan that the Bush Administration buys into. It will take decades to complete, but would cost the US a lot less in terms of non-recoverable military expenses and turn our effort into a genuine investment in the future of world stability. It would also reduce the incentive and popular support for local terrorists and lead to a genuine victory in Iraq as well as a victory in the global war on terror.
The sooner we get started the sooner we can stabilize Iraq and create a long term ally with a relatively prosperous people who have no reason to hate the US and support the anti-American jihadist terrorists, which was our goal in the first place.
By
Matt Rowe, at 10:27 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Greendogdem, at 1:03 PM
I truly don't think you understand my comment. We no longer have a good option anymore.
We lost that on Dec 13 2003. The Day Saddam was captured and we didn't start leaving. If we have declared victory and left at that point we wouldn't be in this mess.
Reconciliation will do nothing at this point. Simply for lack of a better way of saying it there hasn't been enough blood split yet. In these type of conflicts.
I'm sorry i also don't agree with your pro/anti government forces argument either. What is happening is the government forces are turning around and taking revenge killings on the locals as soon as the Us troops turn their backs.
Very simply we are at the point of having two equally bad options
1. Start pulling out in which case iraq will break out into a full scale civil war. That will last at least 20 year or for that matter generation. The Kurds will declare independence drawing in Turkey and then drawing in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Creating a regional war.
2. We stay as more or less referees in the middle of an Iraq civil war, for the at least the next decade or so. The Iraqis get even more sick of us and instead of simply using ieds to kill our soldiers, they start stabbing us soldiers in the back, leading them into ambushes then leading to open hostility by all 3 groups, against us troops. While we are continuing to try to prop up a puppet government. Then the Kurds will declare independence drawing in the Turks and then the Iranians then the Saudis. Stick us in the middle of a regional war. That will be blamed on us and be used as justification to attack us.
As, I said we have blown all good options. This is the reality we live in now not the fantasy of that is being put forth in what you are saying. Bush has no creditability with anyone left in the world. There is no longer a path to genuine victory this is neither defeatism or
anti-Americanism it's the reality. Let me take a saying from one the Advisaries of Imperial Britain. In this context. You 160k Americans simply can not make 30 million Iraqis do what they want if they don't want to. And another quote we don't seem to understand either. Our bad government is much better than your good government. If we understand this we would have left in 2003. It would have been their problem and not ours.
By
Greendogdem, at 1:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home