Then why the rush to classify Iraq as a civil war if it makes no difference? Sectarian violence.. terrorism.. gangsterism.. yes.. but full fledged civil war it is not.. yet.>>
I have stated several times that I don't care how they classify the war, it does not change anything on the ground.
Voilence growing more voilent if we leave is a myth. Voilence has been growing more voilent the entire time we have been there. As for al quada taking over the oil fields in iraq if we leave, that is another myth. Regardless of what would happen when we leave that place, when we do leave, that will mark the last best day al quida has in iraq. We are the ones who invited them into iraq. I highly doubt the iraqies will tollerate then when we leave. If the sunnis hang onto them, they will be gone with them.
Warlords, Religious leaders, whatever you want to call them have been in vogue in that part of the world for a very long time. That is there culture and there culture does not evolve like ours does. If and when the Iraqi police force matures, they will still run along those same sectarian lines. People do not give up historic beliefs like that easily, not even in our own country.
I don't agree with you when you say all we care about is being able to purchase oil at fair market value. First of all, we were doing that before we invaded the place. Regardless of how Iraq turns out, there oil will always hit the market at fair value. The transfer of wealth is in the developement and maintenance of those oil fields via no bid contracts. I figure we will see some fireworks in regards to that by this time next year.
The best chance for the Iraqi people, as a whole, receiving the greatest benefit from that tremendous resource, will be preventing some totalitarian faction from seizing it for their own purposes.>>
That is another area I do not see eye to eye with you. Infact, I think what you fear for the iraqies benifitting from there tremendous resource already happened. It happened when Saddam was in power, and it is happening again right now.
We all get it, even liberals know al quida wants to control large oil fields, drive up the prices to astronimical levels and even cut the west off from the supply. I am not so sure that handing Iraq over to Iran isn't setting up the potential for the same event to play out.
So we don't agree on a lot of things. No big deal, does not mean we have to call each other names. And there are certainly things we can talk about.
The definition of what a terrorits is and hwo to combat them has divided this country in half. What number would you place on the level of troops really needed to pacify Iraq. Keep a couple of things in mind.
1. We have not been able to do it with current troop levels.
2. There are large parts of Iraq that are getting along without us. If and when we pacify bagdad, Arn't we going to have to hit up the Kurdish and bring them back into the program? Do you think they are going to lay down there arms willingly? How many troops are going to have to stay right in Bagdad? Lets face it, the more we press bagdad, the closer it is to turning into a slum more or less like faluja (sp). So what number works for you? How many troops to really take that country? |
