I'm not sure why this surge has been given such heavy coverage. I suppose it's because it's Bush's first real response to the election. But 20,000 troops is almost nothing. 15,000 were sent last year to provide additional security during the elections.
Sadly, I doubt this will do anything to stabilize the situation in Iraq. The civil war that was rekindled by our invasion has been going on for 1,300 years. I doubt six months and 20,000 soldiers will make any difference. If anything the posturing behind the surge, that it's the last great push, is enough to let insurgent leaders know that they only have to weather one more small storm.
Bush is right when he says that violence will ensue from a pullout. But it's violent there already and it looks like we are just in the way of the inevitable breakup of the country and the civil war over oil that would occur between the Shiites and Sunnis. With the Shiites supported by Iran, and the Sunnis supported by Saudi Arabia. In fact, it's a little worse than just forestalling things, it looks like we are getting in the way of the government using strong man tactics, and that's leaving a window open for extremist groups like Al Qaeda. Apparently Al Qaeda is now providing food, water, and other local necessities to towns directly. That's a really bad sign.
For those of you who would criticize me and ask what my plan for Iraq is; my plan is and always has been to withdraw. We shouldn't be there. We are in the middle of a centuries old civil war. Best to let the locals decide it for themselves and to sit on the borders to ensure that the mayhem doesn't spread.
Posted by jherr at January 11, 2007 08:04 AMAll of the focus on the surge” – which I agree with Jack will not achieve its objective – draws the public’s attention away from the much more serious prospect: An attack on Iran. Once again the Internet and the blogs appear to be way ahead of the media and of the politicians, but I think it’s important to beat this drum hard and loudly.
In mid-December I was fortunate enough to be a part of a cruise organized by The Nation. For a week we were steeped in discussions of foreign and domestic affairs with all sorts of policy wonks. One of these was Scott Ritter, the former head of the UN weapons inspection team. Ritter predicted that we would be bombing Iran sometime between March and June of 2007, and that this escalation would be a Navy show. Most of us I believe viewed his prediction with considerable skepticism, but look at what has happened since:
1. General John Abizaid is being replaced by Adm. William ‘Fox’ Fallon, a man with no ground combat experience but an excellent naval strategist.
2. Administration officials are voicing ever louder complaints about Iran’s ‘support’ of the Iraqi insurgents, and the president made a point of it in his recent speech.
3. We invaded an Iranian Consulate in Iraq and took five of its members prisoner
4. Two carrier task forces have been moved into the Gulf, the British are supplying a third and the Aussies have been asked to commit naval forces as well. In the event of an attack, the Iranians can be expected to try to blockade the Straits of Hormusz (through which 25% of the world’s oil supply passes) and it will be the Navy’s job to keep these sea lanes open.
5. As we can’t possibly invade Iran with ground forces, the attack will be launched by ship-based cruise missiles, against Iran’s nuclear facilities and nodal points.
Instead of spinning our wheels and passing toothless resolutions opposing the ‘surge’, Congress should be resolute in keeping the president from escalating this conflict into a wider, Mid East war, and the blogs should be leading the way by insisting it do so.
I think you are ahead of the curve. Clearly the Democrats are working in a reactionary fashion.
The question is at this point, until Bush actually starts gearing up for a serious incursion into Iran, what can be done to stop him? At this point you have Tony Snow saying that talk about Iran attack plans is 'urban myth'.
Can we revoke the original authorization for use of force that the Congress gave him? Since that authorization actually approves a 'regional war'.
Posted by: jherr at January 22, 2007 10:08 AMSpeaking of rescinding the authorization to use force, Maxine Waters has a house bill to do just that:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca35_waters/PR070117_endwar.html
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)