"Political Fiction"
The British created Iraq back in the 1920’s. Since our invasion, we’ve been trying to re-create a country without a tyrant. All the Iraqis have ever known is tyranny, but most Americans vainly flattered themselves, into thinking that our military can create a Democratic Iraq that Iraqis will be willing to die for.
Retired Lieutenant General Bernard Trainor doesn’t think there is much of a difference, between setting benchmarks and setting a timetable for the Iraqi government to take over the security situation in Iraq. He states that it’s irrelevant, because we’re losing and Iraq is starting to look more like Somalia than a nation-state.
Trainor is reminded of Somalia, because of all the various factions that are fighting. Since April, 2003, there has been a power struggle going on, for who is going to run the “political fiction” called Iraq. The United States has been incidental to this process and will remain incidental.
Two major conflicts are occurring. The first is Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr chief of the feared Mahdi Army militia is going up against the established Shiite party of Prime Minister al-Maliki and other established parties. Next, the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting each other in an incredibly bloody conflict. Eventually, the Shiites will most likely retreat to areas south of Baghdad and may control the capital. The Sunnis would control Anbar province and areas north and west of Tikrit.
If the United States is going to have a presence in the region, it would be up in Iraqi Kurdistan in the north. Our presents would give the Kurds assurance that the Turks wouldn’t be invading, while giving the Turks assurance that the Kurds aren‘t going to break away and attempt to have their own country, which might eventually result in the Kurds in Turkey rebelling. This scenario would require a garrison, of 10,000 or 20,000 American troops, and could be more trouble than its worth.
The Iraqi people want a clear, unambiguous statement about what Americans long-term intentions. Bush needs to make an unequivocal statement that there will not be permanent bases, at least south of the Kurdish line.
Retired Lieutenant General Bernard Trainor doesn’t think there is much of a difference, between setting benchmarks and setting a timetable for the Iraqi government to take over the security situation in Iraq. He states that it’s irrelevant, because we’re losing and Iraq is starting to look more like Somalia than a nation-state.
Trainor is reminded of Somalia, because of all the various factions that are fighting. Since April, 2003, there has been a power struggle going on, for who is going to run the “political fiction” called Iraq. The United States has been incidental to this process and will remain incidental.
Two major conflicts are occurring. The first is Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr chief of the feared Mahdi Army militia is going up against the established Shiite party of Prime Minister al-Maliki and other established parties. Next, the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting each other in an incredibly bloody conflict. Eventually, the Shiites will most likely retreat to areas south of Baghdad and may control the capital. The Sunnis would control Anbar province and areas north and west of Tikrit.
If the United States is going to have a presence in the region, it would be up in Iraqi Kurdistan in the north. Our presents would give the Kurds assurance that the Turks wouldn’t be invading, while giving the Turks assurance that the Kurds aren‘t going to break away and attempt to have their own country, which might eventually result in the Kurds in Turkey rebelling. This scenario would require a garrison, of 10,000 or 20,000 American troops, and could be more trouble than its worth.
The Iraqi people want a clear, unambiguous statement about what Americans long-term intentions. Bush needs to make an unequivocal statement that there will not be permanent bases, at least south of the Kurdish line.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home