…."especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair but decisive action — and soon." Joe Lieberman writes an op-ed in the Washington Post. (I'm sure this will go over really well with the Koz Kidz.) Lieberman argues forcefully for an increase in the troop levels in Iraq to provide basic security for Iraqi civilians to give the government time to grow strong enough to take over on its own.
The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.
This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.
On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.
Read the whole thing. My son and I were talking the other day about troop levels. Frankly, there should have been more on the ground sooner. That is looking back with 20/20 hindsight, of course. It is vital right now not to simply abandon the Middle East to Iran's ambitions. Yet that is what some want to do.
Pingback: Wake up America
Pingback: Confederate Yankee
Pingback: Michael P.F. van der Galien
I agree that there should have been more troops on the ground to begin with. From what I’ve read, it sounds like a lot of the violence and instability could have been prevented if security had been in place from the beginning. That said, I’m not convinced that escalation or surge or whatever we call it, is going to accomplish security and stability in the current environment. I thought this article in Time was very interesting:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1573037,00.html
We may be looking at a situation like Kosovo where the different sects have to just be completely segregated for the foreseeable future. I’m not as familiar with the structure of the Iraqi government as I’d like to be, but it seems like trying to forge a coalition at the top level is probably hopeless, and that divided government at the local level may be the best way to go.
I would like to hear about a concrete plan that’s drastically different from what we’re doing now before I’d support putting a larger number of our troops in harm’s way. I’ve been hearing for 3 years now that the Iraqis are almost ready to take over their own security.
“Frankly, there should have been more on the ground sooner. That is looking back with 20/20 hindsight, of course.”
Hindsight? Hardly. General Shenseki (sp?) testified BEFORE the war that we would need “several hundred thousand” troops for the occupation. Over the course of 2003, it became very easy to see he was right — if anything, his figure was too low. The Bush Administration denied reality for three long years.