But i also know that it is not a good thing to put american troops in harms way in a situation that strikes me as virtually hopeless at this time.
Many struggles have been seen as "hopeless" in the past. Hell, we were taking on two of the most powerful nations on the planet simultaneously during WWII, as well as producing arms for the Brits and Soviets.
And we didn't have a real victory until Midway, and that was only one that was, at the time, considered a defensive victory that merely held back the tide of the Japanese expansion.
The campaign in Italy was also a "quagmire" that many generals were strongly against becoming involved in. They felt we should have used those troops for a cross-channel attack in 1943 and that the surrender of Italy was insufficient reason to divert such resources there.
I'm pretty confident that while US forces are in Iraq, there won't be a civil war. However, so long as Ahmadinejad and Syria have combined forces to maintain instability in Iraq, there will be some form of insurgency.
Both of those countries, as in Lebanon, have an interest in distracting our attention from focusing upon them.
And yes.. it could be far worse, IMO. Saddam had learned his lesson from Desert Storm. Given a similar opportunity where US attention was not focused upon him, he'd be very occupied trying to get some "payback" against the Kuwaitis, Saudis, and Iranians.
His honor and credibility demanded that he do so.
Iraq, for the most part, is fairly stable. There is Baghdad and the Anbar province that still remain unruly (and some instability in Diyala province), but most of the country is getting on with business and daily life.
But we don't see that reported in the news because most reporters are stationed in Baghdad and don't often get out of the city.
Hawk |
