"...you could not leave that vaccuum...."
Sure you could. The first President Bush (& Scowcroft), not to mention Reagan undoubtedly understood the benefits of having our enemies fight EACH OTHER, rather then painting a target on ourselves by standing in the middle of a civil war between Saudi Arabia and the Sunnis, and Iran and the Shiites.
The Iraqi civil war is 'hotting up' even as we speak... and will proceed under it's own impetus whether we are there, or not.
Three Iraqi provinces are firmly allied with the Sunni insurgency (and extremely well funded by the Saudi Sunnis)... while Basra is in the hands of the Shi'a fundamentalists, and imposing Sharia on the inhabitants of the city... while the 'national' Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad just signed a defense pact with Iran, and is requesting Iranian 'military trainers' be sent --- which Iran is more then willing to do.
Rummie gave a speech last week where he indicated that the US leaving was contingent upon the number and abilities of the Iraqi local troops, NOT upon defeating the insurgency.
What is so hard to imagine about achieving our national goals by playing a SMARTER game (even a devious or 'tricky' game), by removing ourselves so that we no longer spur nationalist sentiments and opposition, and terrorist popular recruiting... and allow developments to work in our FAVOR (as they are already posed to do) by having the hardline fundamentalists fight EACH OTHER, create their OWN stalemate and web of failures for their hardline leaders, and thus ultimately *discredit* those same hardliners in the eyes of their own people.
If the ultimate resolution is a partition of Iraq, and the fall of the fundamentalist regimes in both Saudi Arabia and Iran --- I'd argue that that set of developments was MUCH in the interests of the West.
Pouring anymore money down that rat hole is not only counter-productive... it's shooting ourselves in the foot, and SLOWING DOWN the eventual TRIUMPH of our values and national interests. |
