How long do we delay departure and thus cost american lives and treasure before the above doesnt happen---1 year, 5 years, 10 years??
I don't know.. I don't like to deal in timeframes.. I think we should deal in results.
Now, granted, if we see the Iraqi government becomes increasingly more flagrant in their support of Iran, as well as dis-enfranchisement of the Sunnis, and/or Kurds, and they fail to respond to any public "admonishments" on our part, then we'll have to reassess our options.
I'm not quite to the level of saying "a pox on both of your houses". Those 11 million people opting to exercise their right to vote indicates to me that there is hope. All the people need is a party that they believe can best represent their interests.
We also have to fully weigh the risks and costs of permitting Iraq to launch into civil war. Can we guarantee that it won't spill over into a regional war that is even MORE economically disruptive and costly?
Showing impatience is fine. It should be public and aimed at the Iraqi government, and the power elite in a manner that THEY are held responsible for the security of their country and for making political and economic progress (with our assistance, of course).
But should we reach a point where all sides are displaying intransigence, THEN we should publicly start that our patience is wearing thin and that we're prepared to pull our forces out (basically p*ss on them all).
But that is a hand that we should not play lightly, nor simply because we think everything should be hunky-dory by now.
We must, IMO, continue to offer our support, while being prepared to depart the minute the Iraqi people, as a majority, tell us to go.
Until such a time, we must "gut it out" and do our level best to avoid an unthinkable civil war that could expand into a regional war.
And let's face facts.. A Sunni state, lacking economic resources is not going to solve the problem.
Hawk |
