All but official
It seems it's all but official now that Bush is going to announce an escalation of the Iraq war in a few days.
Frankly, I don't see what more troops are going to do. What are we going to do? Get in the middle of a civil war and pick sides? If we don't, how do the extra troops contribute to security? After all, only a very small part of the violence is an insurgency against us. Most of this is Sunnis attacking the Shi'a or Shi'ites attacking Sunnis. If we do pick sides to try to stop the fighting, suddenly we have a war with the other side -- and with the friends of the other side. If we side with the Sunnis and try to wipe our al Sadr, we have al Sadr militia against us, along with the Premier, and probably the Iranians. If we side with al Sadr and the Shi'a, we have the Sunnis against us and probably the Saudis, not to mention the rest of the Sunni muslims, worldwide.
This seems to me to be absolutely a no win situation.
There are some ways in which I wish this (or some plan) did have a significant chance of bringing order to the chaos in Iraq, because I am among those who fear that a withdrawal will lead to a failed state. Iran will come in to assist the Shi'a. Saudi and others will come in to assist the Sunnis, and regional war is a very likely possibility. In the end, Iran will probably end up with the upper hand and control most of the Gulf. Unfortunately, I've come to believe that's going to happen almost no matter what we do. We broke the system beyond repair, and now the nasty consequences are going to ensue no matter what we do.
So, I now believe the least costly thing for us to do is get the hell out of there before we lose too many more of our troops.
US President George W Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learnt.The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces.
Frankly, I don't see what more troops are going to do. What are we going to do? Get in the middle of a civil war and pick sides? If we don't, how do the extra troops contribute to security? After all, only a very small part of the violence is an insurgency against us. Most of this is Sunnis attacking the Shi'a or Shi'ites attacking Sunnis. If we do pick sides to try to stop the fighting, suddenly we have a war with the other side -- and with the friends of the other side. If we side with the Sunnis and try to wipe our al Sadr, we have al Sadr militia against us, along with the Premier, and probably the Iranians. If we side with al Sadr and the Shi'a, we have the Sunnis against us and probably the Saudis, not to mention the rest of the Sunni muslims, worldwide.
This seems to me to be absolutely a no win situation.
There are some ways in which I wish this (or some plan) did have a significant chance of bringing order to the chaos in Iraq, because I am among those who fear that a withdrawal will lead to a failed state. Iran will come in to assist the Shi'a. Saudi and others will come in to assist the Sunnis, and regional war is a very likely possibility. In the end, Iran will probably end up with the upper hand and control most of the Gulf. Unfortunately, I've come to believe that's going to happen almost no matter what we do. We broke the system beyond repair, and now the nasty consequences are going to ensue no matter what we do.
So, I now believe the least costly thing for us to do is get the hell out of there before we lose too many more of our troops.
posted by walldon | 11:47 AM
1 Comments:
In this post a few days ago [http://scatablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/conventional-wisdom-iraq-is-in-throes.html], I raised the question whether sectarianism is the primary driving impulse behind the violence -- as opposed to violence directed aginst those perceived to be working for the government. Treating every death as a result of sectarian conflict keeps us there -- to even many liberals who opposed the war, a moral imperative now to serve as the referee -- and I am trying to make sense of polls that do not want us to be there even as referees. Why would not Iraqis desirous of peace -- an overwhelming majority, I would think -- not want us there as referees to make sure violence does not get out of hand? Or do they know from their better knowledge of their own society that it won't, and that that's just a smokescreen for us to stay there?
Post a Comment
<< Home