Bullshit, you are not going to blame the mess in iraq or the increased violence on democrats.
I think it's fair to state that the democratic platform of unilateral troop withdrawals has exacerbated the violence because it provided direct re-affirmation of the view held by militant insurgents on both sides that the US people lack the will to remain in Iraq. Thus, they see their opportunity to fill that vacuum of power if they exert sufficient displays of force and violence. Those Iraqis sitting on the fence, not happy with foreign troops in their country, but not yet directly supporting one faction or another, will see they have no choice but to choose sides along their respective religious lines.
And yes... I can blame Democrats, as well as Republicans, because both parties voted to authorize the use of force to overthrow Saddam. I could care less whether WMDs were discovered or not.. Representatives and Senators from both parties approved the use of force to uphold UNSC 1441 PRIOR to that resolution being issued. This is different than in 1991, when UNSC 678 was issued and the congress waited until several days prior to the commencement of hostilities to authorize the use of force.
The "fat's in the fire" now DTK, and BOTH parties have an obligation to wage this war against Islamic militants. I would prefer a democracy in Iraq, but failing that then we'll be required to set up a secular dictatorship, or constitutional monarchy that is strong enough to keep the militant religious factions on both sides from plunging the region into a religious civil war.
Remove the hammer??? WTF hammer are you referring to Hawk?
You don't read much, do you? US forces currently in Iraq are not tasked with protecting the civilian population from being attacked. That responsibiliy is held by the Iraqi police and army. The current discussion being held now in DC is whether we should integrate US forces more closely with Iraqi forces, which would place them squarely into a new mission that has them acting to protect the local population.
Currently, US forces are deployed mainly to preserve MSRs lines of communication/supply, and to confront any larger presence of insurgent forces. Other SpecOps forces are tasked with identifying and capturing/killing leaders and members of terrorist networks. But we're not really engaged in the day to day security operations that preserve peace and social order. Thus, they provide a "hammer" that pounds down insurgent forces when they attempt to capture a village or town, holding those towns until Iraqi forces can restore order. Thus, additional troops would be used, IMO, to increase the presence of US forces on the actual streets of contested Iraqi villages, as well as Baghdad.
And Iran is already involved in this war. And for all any of us know, we could increase troop levels and the saudis would still have to jump in and support the sunnis.
Then you agree that Iran is one of the root causes of the continuing violence in Iraq (as well as Syria), and that Iraq is being invaded (or at least interfered with) by neighboring countries. Is it your wish to see Iraq fall under Iranian control?
The only long term solution in iraq is to draw sunnis, kurds and shi'a into power sharing in iraq. For that to happen, we would have to dissolve the current government and then become there government for atleast 30 years.
I would disagree that the current government has to be dissolved. It was duly elected by over 11 million Iraqis and is quite legitimate.
What needs to happen, IMO, is that this government must be motivated to reconcile with Sunnis and Kurds, and be willing to share economic, as well as political, power. The primary concern of the Sunnis is that they will not receive their fair share of the tremendous oil revenues. Their secondary concern is that the traditional tribal system of local government will be dominated by the Shi'a dominated government. Thus, the Iraqi government needs to come to termns with how to placate the centuries old tribal governmental system, and integrate them into a power sharing arrangement. Further, they need to agree to share oil revenues with the Sunnis.
However, it is my opinion that merely transferring these funds into the pockets of the Sunni tribal leaders would be a mistake. The majority of the revenue sharing should be distributed to all Iraqis equally by annual distributions to every man and woman. This would serve to make the government accountable to the entire citizenry and prevent corrupt government officials from mis-appropriating this tremendous wealth. It's not a perfect solution, but it would certainly decentralize economic power and create a consumer driven (demand) economy rather than some kind of centralized planning. The government can then tax, or issue bonds, in order to sop up this excess liquidity being directly injected to the consumer class.
The admin had no plans for iraqies to hold elections when they first invaded.
I don't believe this is totally the case. Certainly military planner mistakenly believed that some Ba'thist government would establish itself to replace Saddam's regime, but it quickly became evident that Saddam and his Al-Tikriti tribal clan was the Ba'th party and no one was strong enough to replace them.
You need to come to terms that our national (as well as global) interest is prevent Jihadist minded Islamic powers from gaining control in Iraq. It makes no sense to overthrow Saddam merely to permit the "Talibanization" of Iraq.
Hawk |
