Five years later
What more can be said about this war? Even Saint General Petraeus just said that the Iraqis haven't been making political progress, the reason for the surge. For a thorough rundown of the political scenario there, check out this post from Juan Cole.
Also interesting is this discussion debating the merits of the surge between Fred Kagan and Nir Rosen. I've really liked Rosen's journalistic work in the past, and he provides some useful insight here. What's particularly interesting is that, although Rosen believes that the surge has not worked, he also thinks that pulling out US troops will lead to worse Sunni-Shi'a violence, although he thinks that US troops remaining in Iraq only forestalls the inevitable.
While preventing a deepened civil war is perhaps the best argument for staying in Iraq, it also underscores how pathetic this mission has become after five years, longer than US involvement in the Civil War, World War One, and World War Two. To put it in perspective, imagine if the case for war was made in 2003 promising that US troops had to stay in Iraq five years down the road to prevent a civil war even worse than the only already raging.
Also interesting is this discussion debating the merits of the surge between Fred Kagan and Nir Rosen. I've really liked Rosen's journalistic work in the past, and he provides some useful insight here. What's particularly interesting is that, although Rosen believes that the surge has not worked, he also thinks that pulling out US troops will lead to worse Sunni-Shi'a violence, although he thinks that US troops remaining in Iraq only forestalls the inevitable.
While preventing a deepened civil war is perhaps the best argument for staying in Iraq, it also underscores how pathetic this mission has become after five years, longer than US involvement in the Civil War, World War One, and World War Two. To put it in perspective, imagine if the case for war was made in 2003 promising that US troops had to stay in Iraq five years down the road to prevent a civil war even worse than the only already raging.
Labels: Iraq
posted by honestpartisan | 12:39 AM
1 Comments:
I think Bush made a critical mistake in not prestenting the worst case senario to the american people when we invaded Iraq. Much of his political problems now stem from the rosey picture that was painted in 2003.
I at the time being a military man knew we would be in Iraq 20+ years. Look at Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.
Once you begin an occupation, you never really leave.
Whats scary as well to me is liberals not taking into consideration the very harsh consequences of pulling our troops out. Loose little now, or loose very very big later.
I spent 4 years prior to the invasion of Iraq looking at intelligence reports whith "conclusive" evidence Saddam Hussien was pursuing WMD. As it turned out, Saddam faked having it to keep Iran at bay and Bush made a bad call. However, given the information available in 2003 he made the same call I would have. Armchair quarterbacking and 20/20 hindsight will not solve the problems we face in the middle east. Only blood, sweat and tears will do that. Its a loose/loose situation, but one we have to follow through on. It often puzzles me that Democrats can't begin to paint me a picture of what Iraq will look like 2 years after a retreat. I can paint that picture having lived there a good portion of my adult life, and it has direct consequences for the United States that are intollerable. We can't afford to have Iraq become a terrorist state, which it will if we prematurely leave. I agree with McCain, we need to stay as long as it takes, and we will indeed be in Iraq to some capacity for many years to come.
Post a Comment
<< Home