More Troops Before There's Less?
According to this AP story, the US is likely to increase troop numbers in Iraq to enforce security measures before they decrease numbers and start a mass pull-out of Iraq.
Salon points out that the projected 20,000 troop reductions by spring contain huge qualifiers and conditions: namely that we could reduce from 130,000 troops to 110,000 or less if "conditions on the ground permitted."
The concern is essentially whether Iraq's insurgency continues in its quest to destabalize an already tottering nation. Were it not for the current pressure of American troops and war-time western capitalists stemming the flow and adding pressure to Iraq's insurgent arteries, it would appear that we'd burst into a full-out bleeding civil war there.
So what's to be done? Clearly, a full pull-out in Iraq is not in the cards. A significant troop reduction seems necessary, politically, ideologically, and realisitically: the more troops we maintain there the more Rumsfeld's dream-team force becomes a faint memory of theory; the more America feels slighted by their Administration's choices; and, frankly, the more alternative threats are allowed to build, such as in Iran and Syria, or North Korea, or other nations of concern.
There are some Democrats that want a full troop pull out. They'll state that the problems that are occuring in Iraq are no longer under our control. They are somewhere near half-right: we simply can't secure this region. However, it's foolish for a Democrat to state that we should abandon what we, by choice, pursued. This is a political motivation, but not a realistic one. Not that we're doing this right at this point- things couldn't be more wrong- but if we don't reconstruct Iraq in a way that's culturaly feasible for the population of Iraqis and politically maintainable for the West, then the entire exercise will, at its very best, push Iraq back into a cycle of extremist threat that we face from numerous countries there. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Sadly, we'll be in Iraq for years. Even from now. We'll have a presence there for some time. And not a one of us had a say in that.
Salon points out that the projected 20,000 troop reductions by spring contain huge qualifiers and conditions: namely that we could reduce from 130,000 troops to 110,000 or less if "conditions on the ground permitted."
The concern is essentially whether Iraq's insurgency continues in its quest to destabalize an already tottering nation. Were it not for the current pressure of American troops and war-time western capitalists stemming the flow and adding pressure to Iraq's insurgent arteries, it would appear that we'd burst into a full-out bleeding civil war there.
So what's to be done? Clearly, a full pull-out in Iraq is not in the cards. A significant troop reduction seems necessary, politically, ideologically, and realisitically: the more troops we maintain there the more Rumsfeld's dream-team force becomes a faint memory of theory; the more America feels slighted by their Administration's choices; and, frankly, the more alternative threats are allowed to build, such as in Iran and Syria, or North Korea, or other nations of concern.
There are some Democrats that want a full troop pull out. They'll state that the problems that are occuring in Iraq are no longer under our control. They are somewhere near half-right: we simply can't secure this region. However, it's foolish for a Democrat to state that we should abandon what we, by choice, pursued. This is a political motivation, but not a realistic one. Not that we're doing this right at this point- things couldn't be more wrong- but if we don't reconstruct Iraq in a way that's culturaly feasible for the population of Iraqis and politically maintainable for the West, then the entire exercise will, at its very best, push Iraq back into a cycle of extremist threat that we face from numerous countries there. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Sadly, we'll be in Iraq for years. Even from now. We'll have a presence there for some time. And not a one of us had a say in that.
posted by General Stan at 11:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home