Even though leftists decry questions over their patriotism and claim they aren't on the side of the terrorists, the terrorists always endorse the Democrats for some reason.
Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."
"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."
Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."
Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.
"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.
So yes, the Democrat party is certainly emboldening our enemies with their talk of surrender. Remember that just about two years ago Osama Bin Laden endorsed the Democrats, too. America would be much stronger if Democrat politicians weren't continually dangling our nation over the precipice of defeat.
Advocating a change in strategy is not "talk of surrender".
the iraqies just want america out of thier country and if americas talking of leaving of course thier gonna be happy about it
Advocating a change in strategy is not "talk of surrender".
What strategy other than retreat are Democrats advocating?
Mark, that would depend on the strategy, wouldn't it?
ucf: Pulling some troops from Iraq for use elsewhere in the war on terrorism (where they can do more good) is not "retreat".
BB: Of course, but that's hardly the point. The point is that people like MW and ucfengr seem to think that anything other than what Bush/Rumsfeld says about Iraq is "talk of surrender".
Mark, I think you're mistaken in your theory of what MW and ucfengr think. It's not that anything other than Bush is surrender. You're making the usual Kerryesque assumption that those who don't agree with you are stupid, ergo MW and ucfengr can't think for themselves and must be blindly following Bush. And that's nonsense.
We understand quite well what the liberals want to do in Iraq. In fact, I think that we understand its consequences better than the liberals do. The liberal agenda is emotional and fear-driven, and that fear blinds them to the long-term consequences of what they want to do.
The liberals don't see their plan as surrender; they see it as escape from overwhelming fear. But their plan amounts to surrender: Our enemies would perceive it as surrender, our allies perceive it as surrender, and it would push us much closer to a more thorough surrender.
It's like a child eating too much Halloween candy: He doesn't intend to make himself sick, and he doesn't understand why his parents keep talking about him becoming sick. But those who can think a little farther into the future can see natural and inevitable consequences that the child cannot.
A leader with no followers is simply a person going for a walk.
The liberal agenda is emotional and fear-driven? And what's the neo-conservative agenda driven by? Virtue and supreme knowledge? Hardly. The neo-conservative agenda is driven by emotion and fear as well, just used in different ways. The rhetoric pulls on everyone's emotions and plays on their fears just the same.
Since when do we care what our enemies think of us? Why is that the standard by which our actions are judged? Our goal is a stable, self-sustaining, and free Iraq. Can any of you explain to me how our military is going to bring that about? Explain to me how Iraq has a military solution. Being a buffer in a civil war isn't going to solve anything. Propping up a feeble government with no real incentive to get their house in order (as long as we continue to say "take all the time you need") is not going to lead to our goal. Our presence in Iraq instigates the very violence and instability we hope to curtail.
Pulling some of our troops out of Iraq (as no one is calling for a complete withdrawl from the region) is merely an acknowledgement of the reality that if our military was the answer to this puzzle, it would have stopped being a puzzle a long time ago.
You are right about one thing, though. I *do* think MW and ucfengr are stupid about Iraq and I have no faith in their ability to objectively look at either the situation in Iraq or what the Democrats specifically and liberals in general are truly advocating.. as their "Democrats will bring defeat" rhetoric demonstrates.
Dems may have different theories of what to do, but to the whacko muslims that want to kill Americans, Westerners, Gays, Women Voters and/or Jews apparently view the Democratic position as a sign of surrender and by default a sign of weakeness and just a step on their path to victory.
It doesn't matter what they think of us, it matters if they think they are winning.
Well, so far.. even with us locked up in Iraq.. they *are* winning. Iraq is unstable, our ability to hunt terrorists around the world is lessened by our committment in Iraq, and the democratic government is a very sad joke.
When we're there, their goal posts become "keep the Americans from making progress". When we leave, their goal posts change and become "hooray, we're forcing them to leave". They always think they're winning, and their ability to rationally look at our situation (let alone theirs) is highly suspect. Are you really sure their determination of whether they're winning or not is relevant?
Mark, I couldn't have imagined a better example of liberal cluelessness on foreign policy than your idea that it doesn't matter whether they think they're winning or losing. If they think they're losing, then they'll stop fighting. If they think they're winning, then they'll keep fighting. Is this really so hard to understand?
When liberals declare that we're going to lose, they are encouraging the enemy and getting our boys killed. They will continue to kill Americans, in the Mideast or Midwest, just as long as they think they're winning, and they'll think that just as long as you and CNN and the New York Times keep telling them that they're winning, and that we aren't going to fight back. The success of your view of foreign policy means the death of this country and the destruction of our way of life.
Ben, we're not talking about people with rational considerations for their well-being. They live to fight and serve their clandestine purposes. Losing is not a deterrent to them.
Did the overwhelming hopelessness of David Koresh's situation stop him from doing terrible things? No, it didn't.
Did the knowledge that they'll get caught eventually and put to death stop those on death row from committing their crimes? No, it didn't.
Terrorists are not rational people. In their view, they're perfectly rational.. and even reasonable. But following a set of beliefs in the way they do is the antithesis of rationality and the considerations for success and failure that you're applying to them.
Mark: You may think the terrorists are winning, but they clearly do not, as evidenced by all the captured panicked letters from the al Qaeda leaders in Iraq. I do agree that our current strategy in Iraq isn't working as well as I'd like, but I think the obvious solution is to fight harder and more broadly, not to pull out. We may need more troops in the region... probably not in Iraq, but in Syria and Iran. We have a vice-grip on both countries, surrounding them with Israel and Afghanistan, but we're reluctant to press our advantage because of leftist whining.
MW: Even if they think they're losing, does that mean they're closing up shop and heading home? No, it doesn't.. which means that it ultimately doesn't matter whether they think they're winning or not.. because they're going to fight us and cause trouble either way.. which also means we shouldn't expect any change in their perception of how things are going to result in a lessening of hostilities.
The bottom line is that the Iraqi "government" has to have an incentive to take care of things on their own. As long as we're there as the rich uncle that swoops in and takes care of things, they're never going to take responsibility for their own security.
Mark, you are completely wrong in thinking that terrorists are irrational people. Like most liberals, you think that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be stupid, ignorant, or irrational. But that's a delusion of your religion, not a fact about the world.
The terrorists understand their world perfectly, and they understand their own belief system better than most Americans---far better than most liberals. What scares us is not that their thinking is muddled, but that their thinking is so very clear, and its clarity reveals the confusion within our own thinking.
In a nutshell, the terrorists believe 1) that the Koran is the direct and infallible word of God, 2) that Muslims alone are faithful to God, and all others are infidels, 3) that God commands all Muslims to conquer the Earth in his name, and 4) therefore all non-Muslims should be forcibly converted, reduced to dhimmi status, enslaved, or killed.
We Americans, on the other hand, believe---well, what is it that we believe, exactly? That Islam is a religion of peace? That we should respect all cultures, including the ones that treat women as property and execute homosexuals? That they'll be nice to us if we'll be nice to them? That everything bad in the world is our fault, and we should grovel before random foreigners for forgiveness? That our culture of limitless tolerance is so wonderful that everyone who is exposed to it will enthusiastically embrace it?
Liberalism failed, Mark. It will die, and no amount of name-calling will change that fact. It may die from a knife to the throat, or from one too many burning busses in Paris, or from too many babies that weren't born, or from a sea change in the culture itself accompanied by some resounding defeats at the ballot box. A hundred years from now there will be no more liberals, and historians will wonder how anyone could have had such preposterous beliefs.
Ben, you're completely wrong in your belief that liberalism will die. As we've covered in previous discussions, ideologies change. Conservatism has changed over the last 30-40 years, and will undoubtedly change considerably in another 30-40 years. The same is true of liberalism. While I have no doubt that the death of liberalism is something on the order of a wet dream for you, it will likely remain just that; a dream. Like most conservatives, you think that anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't understand" or is, in essence, stupid, ignorant, and irrational.
Of course terrorists understand their world perfectly, but that's not the point. Their beliefs are not rational. To them they are, but not to the rest of the world. The beliefs of terrorists, that you've probably accurately depicted, preclude any notion of their actions being predicated on any perceived success or failure. A belief system that is so pure, so absolute, and so axiomatic is a rejection of rationality, sensibility, and reason.
There will always be a crucial duality to our thinking. There will always be people who advocate change and there will always be people who advocate maintaining things the way they are.. or were. In that very basic sense, there will always be liberals and there will always be conservatives. There will also be each of a million notches in between the two on the spectrum, but the basic reality that we're all individuals with unique perspectives prevents any species-wide collective view of ourselves and our world.
Pulling some troops from Iraq for use elsewhere in the war on terrorism (where they can do more good) is not "retreat".
I don't understand, are you arguing that there are too many troops in Iraq or that we need more troops elsewhere? Our troops in Iraq are a significant portion of our combat strength but no where near the whole of it. We could fight another Iraq size war with the strength we have left. Keep in mind that we are using very little air or sea power in Iraq, this could easy be used to support wherever you have in mind that we need troops. Assuming we need troops elsewhere, where do we need them? Iran? North Korea? Where else would you like to invade?
ucf: I'd like us to not let the Taliban regain power in Afghanistan like they appear to be doing.
I think many of our troops in Iraq can be serving greater purposes in the war on terrorism than buffering between two sides in Iraq's civil war and coddling an ineffective and impotent Iraqi "government.
Mark: You really think the Taliban is going to regain power in Afghanistan? Come on.
Where do you think our troops could be "serving great purpose"? Surely you don't think we need to "re-deploy" all the troops in Iraq to pacify the Taliban. Where else would you send them? Ft. Hood, Texas?
When I served in the US Army, a "re-deployment" of troops away from a battle you hadn't yet won was called a retreat. What do they call it in the army you served in?
I think the Taliban loves the fact that our primary military focus is Iraq.. and they wouldn't even be a consideration anymore if Iraq wasn't the sinkhole of time, resources, and money that it is.
Of course we don't need all of our troops in Iraq to eliminate the Taliban. Don't put words in my mouth.
You served in the US Army? Great. Explain to me what the military solution to Iraq is.
Mark: You talk a lot about "re-deploying" the troops in Iraq, but you are very vague about how many we need to "re-deploy" and where they should go other then perhaps sending more (how many?) to Afghanistan. I am not sure why you think sending more troops to Afghanistan will improve the situation there, while withdrawing them from Iraq will improve the situation there. Seems rather contradictory, but I am willing to concede that perhaps you grasp of military strategy is better than my own. It's hard to determine because you seem determined to remain rather vague on what we need to do with the troops that are currently in Iraq and how "re-deploying" them will improve the situation.
As to my thoughts on what we need to do to ensure victory in Iraq, I think we need to eliminate Iran and Syria as military and political threats in the region. It's not just the insurgency in Iraq that is primarily funded and trained in Iran, it's also the Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza. So in the end, maybe I do agree that we need to re-deploy the troops in Iraq, but I doubt we agree on where they should go.
ucf: When I have access to detailed information about our troops and how/where they're deployed then I can give you specifics. Given that such access is highly unlikely, perhaps your "quest for specifics" is not the best path for you to take in attempting to make your point.
Moving some troops from Iraq to other fronts in the war on terror does a couple things:
- Allows us greater pursuit of the majoritty of terrorists who, guess what, *aren't* in Iraq.
- Sends a signal to the Iraqi "government"" that we're not going to babysit them indefinitely and jeopardize our other anti-terrorism military efforts.
The other thing to consider is that our military presence in Iraq, as buffers in the civil war and "flypaper" to terrorists, is counterproductive. Do you think the Iraqi people are happy that we're using their country to attract terrorists? I highly doubt it. Is that a significant part of why anti-American sentiment is rather high? You bet it is. Is this, overall, hindering our overall goal of a stable, free, and democratic Iraq? Absolutely.
Mark: "When I have access to detailed information about our troops and how/where they're deployed then I can give you specifics."
So in essence, you are just mouthing Democrat talking points, because you have no idea where we should "re-deploy" these troops to or if in fact "re-deploying" them would improve the situation in Iraq or anywhere else.
"Allows us greater pursuit of the majority of terrorists who, guess what, *aren't* in Iraq. "
Well, where are they? That would probably give us a good hint on where we need to "re-deploy" the troops. Again I ask, what other countries do you think we should invade?
"Sends a signal to the Iraqi "government" that we're not going to babysit them indefinitely and jeopardize our other anti-terrorism military efforts."
So in order to "send a signal" to the Iraqi government you think we should abandon them to Iran, Al Queda, et. al. Seems like a pretty harsh signal, kind of like cutting off a childs finger to teach him not to play with knives.
"The other thing to consider is that our military presence in Iraq, as buffers in the civil war and "flypaper" to terrorists, is counterproductive. Do you think the Iraqi people are happy that we're using their country to attract terrorists? "
Do you really think if we "pulled chocks" and left that Iranians, Al Queda, et. al. would leave Iraq in peace to develop into a "stable, free, and democratic" nation? Isn't it more likely that Iraq would become an Iranian satellite (especially a nuclear armed Iran) or worse, an oil rich Afghanistan in the Middle East, after much bloodletting of course? When people talk of Iraq as another Vietnam, I sometimes wonder what they mean, is it like Vietnam or do they just want it to end like Vietnam, with the US pullout and the "Killing Fields", etc., so they can blame it on Bush.
ucf: Our military presence in Iraq, as an occupying force, isn't helping the situation and is, to a certain degree, a negative influence. Reducing that military presence helps by reducing or eliminating the negative effects.
We also don't need to "invade" other countries necessarily. Countries like Iran and Syria give us few options, but others could be approached as merely assisting them with their own anti-terrorism efforts. Lebanon comes to mind.
Who here is talking about abandonment? I'm certainly not. All I know is that we can't use Iraq as "flypaper" for terrorists *and* expect Iraq to turn into a stable, free, and democratic country. We also cannot expect anti-American sentiment among the Iraqi people to lessen under the current strategy of "stay the course".
Mark: What's the size difference between an "occupying force" and a non-occupying force? How many troops would we need to withdrawl before the terrorists will allow Iraq to develop into a "stable, free, and democratic country"? You seem to be arguing that it is the US troops who are preventing Irag from developing into a "stable, free, and democratic country" rather that the Iranian theocracy, the Islamist terror groups, and the Baathist dead-enders. How could these groups view a major US withdrawl as anything less than a victory and a sign that the US doesn't have the stomach to fight them?
BTW--I work with a lot of folks who served in Iraq and the people don't seem to be all that crazy about the US leaving. Even the Shia aren't crazy about the thought of being a satellite of Iran, which would be the likely result of a US withdrawl.
"We also don't need to "invade" other countries necessarily. Countries like Iran and Syria give us few options"
Mark, I must have missed this, but what makes you think that we will have more success in Iran or Syria than we ostensibly are having in Iraq? It invading Iraq is creating an overwhelming number of terrorists, what will invading Iran and Syria do? Heck, they might even find they can spare a few to attack the Great Satan's homeland, instead of blowing up Iraqi police stations, poling places, and the occasional Humvee.
ucf: Our presence in Iraq is, as I've said numerous times before and you seem to keep forgetting, inspiring the creation of more terrorists and those who are anti-American. Part of it is the fact that they don't want their country occupied by another country's army. Part of it is our using of their country as "terrorist flypaper".
Withdrawl of some troops to neighboring friendly countries, with a relatively small force kept in Iraq to maintain the basic security of the Iraqi "government" is not "cut and run".
I said Iran and Syria leave us few options. I didn't say we should invade them, and I definitely didn't say they should be handled similarly to Iraq (Iraq shouldn't even be handled like Iraq).
Mark: I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read my posts, because I have referenced you assertions that we are creating more terrorists at least once directly and several other times by implication.
"Withdrawl of some troops to neighboring friendly countries,"
What neighboring friendly countries would you suggest we withdrawl our troops to? Iraq's neighbors are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, and Jordan. Which of these countries could we withdrawl to without creating more terrorists? Weren't our forces in "friendly" Saudi Arabia cited by Al Queda as one of the reasons for 9/11?
"with a relatively small force kept in Iraq to maintain the basic security of the Iraqi "government" is not "cut and run"."
If, ostensibly we are unable to maintain the "basic security of the Iraqi government" with our current deployment, what makes you think we will better able to maintain that security with fewer forces?
"I said Iran and Syria leave us few options. I didn't say we should invade them"
What other options do you envision that we aren't already trying?
ucf: Saudi Arabia, for sure.. but Turkey and Kuwait are other possibilities. They'd be out of Iraq, where they aren't doing anything to advance the situation in our favor but still close enough to prevent outside influences from filling the void. The creation of terrorists in Iraq is a direct function of our occupying presence there. That would not be the case in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Kuwait, as we wouldn't be occupying any of those countries or buffering between two sides in a civil war.
The "basic security of the Iraqi government" is not a problem. We don't need 140,000 troops there for that.
Iran and Syria can either be surgically bombed (which would crystallize support for their regimes; not a good idea) or negotiated with and/or pressured. If Saddam did one good thing, and definitely this would be the only good thing he's done, it was to be a check on Iranian power and influence in the region. That check is gone now, particularly with people in the Iraqi "government" who are friendly to Iran or, at least, not anywhere nearly as adversarial with them as Saddam was.
Mark--I am beginning to think you are pretty clueless. What makes you think that Iran, Al Queda, et. al. cares how many troops we have in Iraq. If the goal is to set up an Islamic state, ala Afghanistan or a greater Persia, one US troop in the region (not just Iraq) is too many. What makes you think that the terrorists will stop attacking us if we retreat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Turkey? Why wouldn't embolden them to continue to attack us in an attempt to drive us completely out of the region? And why would Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey want to take the risk of terrorists setting up shop in their countries, especially if the US shows that it doesn't have the stomach to stay and fight? Once we left those countries, the terrorists would still be there and then they would be the problem of the respective countries.
"Iran and Syria can either be surgically bombed (which would crystallize support for their regimes; not a good idea) or negotiated with and/or pressured."
Yeah, because that's worked so well in the past. Hmm. Sadly, you are only reinforcing my opinion of your cluelessness.
ucf: I never said the terrorists will stop attacking us. They won't. But consider that we have troops stationed all over the world, and none of those places have had happen what you say would happen (terrorists bringing the fight to wherever we go). We're not going to be driven completely out of the region, and they know that as well as we do.
Moving some of our troops out of Iraq is not a sign that we won't stay and fight.. it's a sign that we're not going to keep our troops in an area where they won't be able to bring about the change we want.
I highly doubt anything I could say would change your opinion, of either the Iraq situation or me.. and that's fine. I neither need nor particularly care what your opinions are. They're wrong.. and who am I to stand in the way of that.
"But consider that we have troops stationed all over the world, and none of those places have had happen what you say would happen (terrorists bringing the fight to wherever we go)."
I concede that if we "re-deploy" our troops to Guam or Germany or Okinawa, the danger of them being attacked by terrorists would be much, much lower than keeping them in Iraq. I will also concede that the chances of creating new terrorists in those countries would be similarly low, but that is not where you are talking about re-deploying them, is it? You seem to have a very short memory; US forces and other targets have been attacked recently by terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. What makes you think that a larger US presence wouldn't inspire more attacks in those countries?
"Moving some of our troops out of Iraq is not a sign that we won't stay and fight.. "
It may not be to you, but it will be to the terrorists and it probably will be to our troops as well. Remember they aren't as smart as you are. Let's see, if I'm a terrorist and one of my goals is to get the US out of Iraq, and the US starts moving troops out of Iraq, how can I look at that as anything other than a victory? Now, I want the troops out of Kuwait too, what do you suppose I do? The same thing that caused them to "courageously re-deploy" to Kuwait.
And do you honestly think we'd be in more danger in those other countries than we are in Iraq? No, we wouldn't. The bottom line is that our troops aren't being effective in Iraq; they aren't making the situation better. We need to find a way to put them in areas where they'll be both safer and still able to intervene in Iraq when/if necessary while removing them as an obstacle to progress. With less troops in Iraq and more in the other countries nearby, we'd be better able to thwart attacks and terrorist activity in more places than just Iraq and Afghanistan.
Who cares what the terrorists think of our actions. They're going to attack us anyway, so we should do what we need to do to and not let their perceptions of success or failure determine our course of action.
"And do you honestly think we'd be in more danger in those other countries than we are in Iraq? No, we wouldn't."
How do you know? You seem so certain, so I imagine you've spent a great deal of time studying the issue, perhaps you could give some specific reasons why you draw this conclusion. Oh, and "Bush is an idiot" probably wouldn't meet the criteria of a specific reason.
"Who cares what the terrorists think of our actions. "
Well, you seem to. You sure have spent a lot of time speculating about how our actions are creating more terrorists. Sounds like someone who cares about what terrorists think, no?
Well, being in a country that's mostly not trying to kill you (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et al.) is safer by default than being in a country where more are trying to kill you.
Caring about the formation of terrorists is different from caring what those terrorists think of their successes or failures.
"Well, being in a country that's mostly not trying to kill you (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et al.) is safer by default than being in a country where more are trying to kill you."
You seem to be assuming that the "insurgents" are mostly Iraqis as opposed to Iranians, Saudis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, etc.; on what do you base this assumption? Most of what I have seen would indicate that the insurgency is largely foreign supported and trained. Again I note, one of the reasons cited by the 9/11 attackers in their "declaration of war" was the US occupation of Muslim lands in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. You seem to be conviently ignoring this.
The people who are causing problems for us in Iraq are mostly native. This is not in dispute.
What we really should be doing is exactly what I read in Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr.'s "How to Win in Iraq"; focusing more on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and winning over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This would lessen popular support for the insurgency and open up to us the greatest source of intelligence about the insurgency: the Iraqi people. The "oil spot strategy" he talks about could also be done with less troops in Iraq, but it would require a longer committment. I doubt it would be longer than our current strategy.
How to Win in Iraq
Mark, you are following the same flawed logic as the administration did, regarding troop levels in Iraq.
[The pro-democracy views Rumsfeld and Sullivan share contributed to how few troops were committed to Iraq. They reasoned that if the Iraqis are good enough for democracy, they're good enough to run their own show. They also misdiagnosed Soviet ills in Afghanistan, concluding that more troops would be seen as an army of occupation, increasing friction and the likelihood of a guerrilla war.
So, while Rusmfeld and Sullivan may have come to disagree about troop levels in the Iraq mission, theirs was a disagreement about tactics among people with fundamentally similar views. Sullivan's shares the same messianic concept of the Iraq mission with Rumsfeld and Bush. And rather than revisit his liberal, pro-democracy assumptions, he instead projects gross incompetence upon Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld may be incompetent, but he's also very smart. He's incompetent because his thinking is warped by the same liberal ideology that he shares in common with Sullivan.]
Withdrawing more troops will not get us closer to restoring security. Without security, the Iraqis and our contractors cannot successfully rebuild the country's infrastructure.
You also need to keep in mind that the Iranians and Syrians are going to continue pouring in personnel and resources to destabilize the country even after we leave. They want to expand their influence and gain control over Iraq's oil reserves as well.
Hopefully, the sectarian violence will wane before Bush leaves office.
[November 3, 2006: About 100,000 Iraqi Sunni Arabs are fleeing the country each month. In 2003, Sunni Arabs were about 20 percent of the population. But Sunni Arabs have been leaving the country, fearful of retribution from Kurds and Shia Arabs, ever since, and at the current rate of involuntary immigration, Sunni Arabs will be only ten percent of the population in another year. While the terrorists comprise a minority of Sunni Arabs, the same minority that supported the Sunni Arab dictatorship headed by Saddam Hussein, they are numerous enough (nearly a million people) to keep the violence going for years. That's unless the government mounts major military operations on the towns and neighborhoods in central Iraq where these Sunni Arabs live. That's what the Sunni Arabs fear will happen eventually, and much bloodshed will follow.]
With one side so weakened, a civil war in Iraq won't last too long.
From "How to Win in Iraq":
"the United States needs a real
strategy built around the principles of counterinsurgency warfare. To date, U.S. forces in Iraq have largely concentrated their efforts on hunting down and killing insurgents. The idea of such operations is to erode the enemy’s strength by killing fighters more quickly than
replacements can be recruited. Although it is too early to tell for sure whether this approach will ultimately bring success, its current record
is not good: even when an attack manages to inflict serious insurgent casualties, there is little or no enduring improvement in security once U.S. forces withdraw from the area. Instead, U.S. and Iraqi forces should adopt an “oil-spot strategy” in Iraq, which is essentially the opposite approach. Rather than focusing
on killing insurgents, they should concentrate on providing security and opportunity to the Iraqi people, thereby denying insurgents the popular support they need. Since the U.S. and Iraqi armies cannot guarantee security to all of Iraq simultaneously, they should start by focusing on certain key areas and then, over time, broadening the effort—hence the image of an expanding oil spot. Such a strategy would have a good chance of success. But it would require a protracted commitment of U.S. resources, a willingness to risk more casualties in the short term, and an enduring U.S. presence in Iraq, albeit at far lower force levels than are engaged at present. If U.S. policymakers and the American public are unwilling to make such a commitment, they should be prepared to scale down their goals in Iraq significantly."
Still, I think that strategy would ultimately degenerate into more counter-insurgency whack-a-mole. It's a good thing that I don't run the country, since I find Roman "desert making" appealing right now.
Well, a lot of it is already desert.. so that cuts down the amount of work quite a bit.