Dilemma
I saw Joe Biden (D) and Lindsey Graham (R) on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday. They both made compelling arguments for (Graham) the surge of troops and against (Biden). I understand the need to bring the horrific violence under control in Baghdad, but I just don't think this can be done with the widely reported 20,000 troops (and neither does Graham--he agrees with McCain that at least 50,000 would be needed). I also think unless the military, along with the Iraqi military (and this is very important as there is some sentiment that the Iraqi government wouldn't supply the troops needed), can go into Sadr city, it is all for naught. Sadr is calling the shots, and Maliki doesn't even want to govern anymore (not a good sign). Iraq is steadily evolving from a secular dictatorship to a theocracy run by a radical. (Hmmm, I don't think this is progress.) The Iraqi blogs state how men wearing western garb are being shot by militias, and women not wearing the habib are having their heads shaved. This is complete madness and not a positive sign as far as fostering a "democracy" is concerned. I hope someone in the Pentagon is reading the English language Iraqi blogs because they are heart-breaking, and really demonstrate what is happening to the educated; there is a "brain-drain" as the professionals and educated Iraqis are leaving in droves because they are targeted by the militas, regardless of sect. The intellectuals are always the first killed in any coup or civil strife.
I tend to think Biden's idea of talking to all the neighboring countries, and yes this means Iran and Syria, is feasible and worth doing. It is not in even Iran's interest if Iraq descends into complete chaos--it will have hoards of poor Shiites flooding the border, trying to escape Sunni insurgents and mercanaries from the surrounding Sunni countries. Iran's border villages are already problematic--a vast surge of immigrants would destablize the Iranian regime by fostering conflicts between the various ethnic groups in Iran. And it would not be a good destablization as Sadr's huge flock is even more radical than the ayatollahs in Iran, and far more radical than the Iranian populace.
We can't go at this alone, and Britain is not going to send anymore troops. I'm interested in what others have to say about this. . .please post your responses!
I saw Joe Biden (D) and Lindsey Graham (R) on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday. They both made compelling arguments for (Graham) the surge of troops and against (Biden). I understand the need to bring the horrific violence under control in Baghdad, but I just don't think this can be done with the widely reported 20,000 troops (and neither does Graham--he agrees with McCain that at least 50,000 would be needed). I also think unless the military, along with the Iraqi military (and this is very important as there is some sentiment that the Iraqi government wouldn't supply the troops needed), can go into Sadr city, it is all for naught. Sadr is calling the shots, and Maliki doesn't even want to govern anymore (not a good sign). Iraq is steadily evolving from a secular dictatorship to a theocracy run by a radical. (Hmmm, I don't think this is progress.) The Iraqi blogs state how men wearing western garb are being shot by militias, and women not wearing the habib are having their heads shaved. This is complete madness and not a positive sign as far as fostering a "democracy" is concerned. I hope someone in the Pentagon is reading the English language Iraqi blogs because they are heart-breaking, and really demonstrate what is happening to the educated; there is a "brain-drain" as the professionals and educated Iraqis are leaving in droves because they are targeted by the militas, regardless of sect. The intellectuals are always the first killed in any coup or civil strife.
I tend to think Biden's idea of talking to all the neighboring countries, and yes this means Iran and Syria, is feasible and worth doing. It is not in even Iran's interest if Iraq descends into complete chaos--it will have hoards of poor Shiites flooding the border, trying to escape Sunni insurgents and mercanaries from the surrounding Sunni countries. Iran's border villages are already problematic--a vast surge of immigrants would destablize the Iranian regime by fostering conflicts between the various ethnic groups in Iran. And it would not be a good destablization as Sadr's huge flock is even more radical than the ayatollahs in Iran, and far more radical than the Iranian populace.
We can't go at this alone, and Britain is not going to send anymore troops. I'm interested in what others have to say about this. . .please post your responses!
posted by mariestaad at 5:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home