Bush's big speech today pretty much said what everyone was expecting: there have been no changes in our current battle plans or exit strategies for Iraq. My sense is that people across the party lines, especially the now unified democratic force, are getting tired of all these hazy strategies which seem to be putting our troops at risk for almost no justifiable reason. So, what could Bush and his peeps do to make things better?
Terrorism cannot be fought with legions of troops, but rather with carefully analyzed intelligence and well thought out strategies to thwart the enemies' plans. Iraq, though, has never been about fighting terrorism. At best it was about taking down a regime which was abusing its power, at worst... well, now is not the time to go into motives. Iraq did not support Al Qaeda, in fact the two are bitter enemies. Bush has better relations with the Bin Laden family than Saddam does. Everything Iraq did fell much more easily into the "extreme government corruption" category than terrorism, so calling the War in Iraq the War on Terror is a misnomer in my opinion. In any case, the current purpose for Coalition troops to be in Iraq is to keep another dictator from coming to power, and to act as a police force while Iraq goes through its unstable transitional period. I can respect that, but our people, our economy, and our world relations depend on our ability to get out of the country as quickly and as smoothly as possible.
There should be no reason that we cannot come up with some sort of strategy for withdrawal that we can work on together with Iraqi people looking to restore order and human rights to their nation. The country is not currently a foreseeable threat to Americans outside its borders, the people within all facets of the Iraqi nation want our troops to leave, and, frankly, the only thing I see keeping the American military force in Iraq in such great numbers is our own oil interests. This is unacceptable. Let's start drawing up some time tables, create a plan to quickly and safely remove our troops, and try and pull this country together by fixing our domestic policies rather than flexing our muscles overseas. But that's just what I think.
Your thoughts?
Anonymous
November 30 2005, 22:32:37 UTC 6 years ago
Ironic pot of poo
And then the Iraqi suicide bomber said, "At best it was about taking down a regime which was abusing its power..."November 30 2005, 22:47:57 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Ironic pot of poo
I don't think I'm seeing your point. We didn't start this war because of Iraqi bombers, we did it because of WMD's, Saddam, and human rights violations (I think both sides can agree on that much). A military force cannot stop the suicide bombers, they're too efficient at flying under the radar. The presence of U.S. forces is increasing the number of suicide bombers, not decreasing them.Or you might just be making a quip that the people of Iraq think we're there purely as an occupation force for oil, which is driving them to take drastic measures against us. Ambiguity's a bitch, yo.
Anonymous
December 2 2005, 05:35:32 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Ironic pot of poo
we did not start this war because of WMD, Saddam, and human rights violations. If that was the case, we should be getting ready to take on North Korea and Iran (WMDs), shouldn't have gotten involved in the Democratic Republic of Congo (we did destroy a democratically elected government and replace it with a ruthless dictator who massacred his own people, Lumumba and Mobutu) and we recognize and do massive trade with one of the larges human rights violaters in the world, read China.so what did we do it for? why did we pick them? is it because we can't tell the difference between arab states, if one's a terroist, they are all terrorists? is it because they have oil and saddam is already a bad guy to us? we went to war because it was a convient excuse. thats my opinion.
and to my quip, i find it amusing in a sad and twisted sort of way that the same noble reason we justify bombing and invading a country is the same one that got us is the beginning, and is still getting us, attacked.
December 2 2005, 14:30:26 UTC 6 years ago
China, N. Korea, Iraq, Etc.
I'm not about to try to read into the dense and small mind of G.W.B. But I will say that there are practical considerations that I would consider before going to war over human rights violations or even WMD. Whether we can win the war; whether winning the war is worth the projected military damage in winning; how heavily the health of our economy leans upon good relations with that country; and so on.I do think that we have to face facts with China: Do we want to wake the next sleeping giant?
"is it because we can't tell the difference between arab states, if one's a terroist, they are all terrorists?" Haha, I like that; there probably is some truth in it.