As shameful as it is, I'm actually beginning to be against a quick withdrawal from Iraq. We know that no display of military strength can force those morons in Baghdad to actually govern, but for now our military is providing some peace on the streets. More kids are going to school and more commerce can take place, at least better than 2006. They are fatally dependent on us, which is bad but at least there is a semblance of security. If they depend on us and we can't even deliver (as it seemed like before), then we might as well leave and save everyone the trouble. But for now at least it looks like we're "effective", so we might as well continue. Because lord knows the UN, NATO, Turkey, Iran, or other Muslim states won't be of much help (and even if they did participate, they would suck worse than us).
We're just lucky that Al Qaeda turned off much of the population so badly that the Iraqis gave us yet another chance. They may not love us there, but at least many seem to tolerate the status quo in hopes of more improvements, just wanting to get on with their daily lives. "Radical anti-American cleric" Muqtada Al-Sadr recently decided to extend the ceasefire of his Mahdi Army, though of course some members aren't heeding it. Al Qaeda intimidates and deliberately targets Iraqi civilians; we're no saints but at least we're paying and feeding them instead. When the US military mistakenly kills civilians, at least we try to financially compensate the next of kin, though I know it is little consolation. The social services are still deplorable, and we need to do a WAY better job speeding up reconstruction. Though nothing will get done if we leave. I know we can't really influence reconciliation, but hopefully we can keep a lid on things like Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia.
I know we created most of the mess, but if we leave soon, a lot of the "progress" in 2007 will be for naught. In Parliament there is some progress on reversing de-Ba'athification and oil profits sharing, plus over 30% of the 2007 Bush benchmarks were met. It's not a great record, but not disastrous either to warrant an immediate and chaotic withdrawal. I don't think we should/can stay in Iraq for decades as McCain might want (except for a small Korea-like force of 10k troops, maybe). But finally our armed forces seem to be learning stuff from their time in the Middle East, and they are getting better at working with Iraqis and treading lightly. Fortunately much of AQ in Iraq is decimated (or so they say), and they seem to prefer to target "collaborator" Sunni leaders more than better-protected American targets. There are fewer large bombings, and probably less weapons smuggling across the border (Iran's been quieter, and Bush has toned down his aggressive rhetoric as of late). Sure there will always be some attacks and killings, but if we're keeping order in the streets at least as well as maybe Haiti or Colombia (I know, the bar is THAT low), I'd say that is better than our total absence from the country. If a new wave of violence begins, then we might need to re-evaluate our role there, as the Powell Doctrine suggests. But while relative calm persists, hopefully we can draw down our forces to 50k or so, and just focus on the hot spots like Baghdad and Mosul (but the Pentagon plans to maintain 140k troops through 2008 unfortunately).
I know we created most of the mess, but if we leave soon, a lot of the "progress" in 2007 will be for naught. In Parliament there is some progress on reversing de-Ba'athification and oil profits sharing, plus over 30% of the 2007 Bush benchmarks were met. It's not a great record, but not disastrous either to warrant an immediate and chaotic withdrawal. I don't think we should/can stay in Iraq for decades as McCain might want (except for a small Korea-like force of 10k troops, maybe). But finally our armed forces seem to be learning stuff from their time in the Middle East, and they are getting better at working with Iraqis and treading lightly. Fortunately much of AQ in Iraq is decimated (or so they say), and they seem to prefer to target "collaborator" Sunni leaders more than better-protected American targets. There are fewer large bombings, and probably less weapons smuggling across the border (Iran's been quieter, and Bush has toned down his aggressive rhetoric as of late). Sure there will always be some attacks and killings, but if we're keeping order in the streets at least as well as maybe Haiti or Colombia (I know, the bar is THAT low), I'd say that is better than our total absence from the country. If a new wave of violence begins, then we might need to re-evaluate our role there, as the Powell Doctrine suggests. But while relative calm persists, hopefully we can draw down our forces to 50k or so, and just focus on the hot spots like Baghdad and Mosul (but the Pentagon plans to maintain 140k troops through 2008 unfortunately).
We keep hearing that the Iraqi security forces will be trained and ready in 18 months (they said that 36 months ago, sheesh). But maybe they might actually meet some minimum criteria. After the British left (and the Poles, Danes, Auzzies, Koreans, and others might follow suit soon), Iraqis took more control of Southern Iraq security. But the most populous provinces still depend on a robust US presence, and there are still neighborhoods that even our most hardened troops won't venture into. What I know for sure is if we leave in 2009 as the leading Dems propose (though I doubt they will or can follow through on), we will definitely be saving blood and treasure, but at the expense of Iraq's future. Though I am definitely not endorsing the GOP's "winning at all costs" mentality, if they even have a reasonable concept of victory anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment