Time To Stop the Madness
The 'surge' philosophy being touted by this idiotic White House is not any more rational, or promising any better results, than the original sending in of troops to Iraq. The quick thrust that the war was touted to be, the easy victory without losses, greeted with flowers and thanks, paid for with oil revenues, was a fantasy. The 'thrust' or 'escalation' or whatever this move is called is nothing more. Reality is not being considered.
From retired General Wesley Clark we have a really good description of this avoidable nonsense.
What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict.
Other uses for troops include accelerating training of the Iraqi military and police. But vetting these Iraqi forces for loyalty has proved problematic. So neither accelerated training nor adding Iraqi troops to the security mission can be viewed as though a specified increase in effort would yield an identical increase in return.
The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.
Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.*************************************************
Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis.[emphasis added]
It is sickening that there are those in power who have no idea how to carry on diplomacy and further the interests of this country. Hopefully it is a lesson that will stay for some time with voters who might be inclined to cast their votes for the biggest lie, in the future.
Sanity needs to be returned to the conducting of foreign affairs. This Democratic Congress has been unmistakably put on notice that it has to weigh in on the war in Iraq, that it has to bring this insane bunch at the helm of our ship of state back to reality. It won't be easy. But it is very much time to begin.
From retired General Wesley Clark we have a really good description of this avoidable nonsense.
What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict.
Other uses for troops include accelerating training of the Iraqi military and police. But vetting these Iraqi forces for loyalty has proved problematic. So neither accelerated training nor adding Iraqi troops to the security mission can be viewed as though a specified increase in effort would yield an identical increase in return.
The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.
Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.*************************************************
Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis.[emphasis added]
It is sickening that there are those in power who have no idea how to carry on diplomacy and further the interests of this country. Hopefully it is a lesson that will stay for some time with voters who might be inclined to cast their votes for the biggest lie, in the future.
Sanity needs to be returned to the conducting of foreign affairs. This Democratic Congress has been unmistakably put on notice that it has to weigh in on the war in Iraq, that it has to bring this insane bunch at the helm of our ship of state back to reality. It won't be easy. But it is very much time to begin.
Labels: Cut and Run, Iraq
posted by Ruth at 7:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home