A Terse Assessment on Iraq
If you're willing to look past the ongoing distortions in Main Stream Media, things are going rather well in Iraq. Significant oil revenues are now flowing into the coffers of the Iraqi government, surpassing pre-war levels. That could not be happening under wartime conditions. And most of that oil is not going to the US, but India. Additionally, China is now interested in investing over $1billion in developing Iraqi oil reserves. It's obvious that they've a different assessment of the situation on the ground than what we hear from MSM.
Mostly the fighting is of a low-level, criminal kind of gang/clan warfare (not counting the foreign terrorists). It would be nice to let these folks kill each other off, but the danger is that - unless they're repressed by some impartial force from the government - they could (and probably would) develop in organization, thus providing a threat to the central government which, for all its faults, is working rather well. Unfortunately, the only force impartial enough for this task are US soldiers, at the moment.
The foreign terrorists are, of course, being dispatched rather efficiently, if Al Qaeda's own internal memos are to be believed. And that was one of the better arguments for creating a warzone in that part of the world.
In either case, what the militants don't realize is that their continuing activity only provides more of an excuse for an American military presence. Even if all patrols would finally be conducted by Iraqi police and military units, the threat posed by the militants will be used to justify the long-term entrenchment of US bases in Iraq for some time to come.
Which is not that bad at all, for the US, as long as the area is of strategic concern.
Mostly the fighting is of a low-level, criminal kind of gang/clan warfare (not counting the foreign terrorists). It would be nice to let these folks kill each other off, but the danger is that - unless they're repressed by some impartial force from the government - they could (and probably would) develop in organization, thus providing a threat to the central government which, for all its faults, is working rather well. Unfortunately, the only force impartial enough for this task are US soldiers, at the moment.
The foreign terrorists are, of course, being dispatched rather efficiently, if Al Qaeda's own internal memos are to be believed. And that was one of the better arguments for creating a warzone in that part of the world.
In either case, what the militants don't realize is that their continuing activity only provides more of an excuse for an American military presence. Even if all patrols would finally be conducted by Iraqi police and military units, the threat posed by the militants will be used to justify the long-term entrenchment of US bases in Iraq for some time to come.
Which is not that bad at all, for the US, as long as the area is of strategic concern.
posted by Finnpundit at 2:00 AM
7 Comments:
So you're saying as long as there is a reason for US troops to be stationed in Iraq, things are going fine?
It doesn't seem to matter to you that they are there to "do the job" and you're not expecting troops home "when the job is done" but see US troops being stationed there indefinitely as the preferred alternative.
The Iraq War is a great success only if there is a job that can be done and the troops can get home after that is done.
I'm not saying the war not being a great success automatically makes it a disaster, it doesn't. Things are way more complicated than that.
It's just your argument about the terrorists being bogged down in Iraq and unable to continue their operations elsewhere that I'm not sure of. What do you say to those who suspect that terrorist activity elsewhere may increase because of Iraq?
My point is not saying that terrorism will or will not increase because of Iraq; there will always be terrorism and it needs to be combatted. I'm just not necessarily buying the arguments "terrorism will increase because of the war" or the other one, your favorite "terrorism will decrease elsewhere because they are too busy fighting US forces in Iraq".
Politicians always explain the latest developments in terrorism to their own advantage. We don't know what the terrorists' next move is and we can't tell for sure if we're ahead of them or what their next move will be.
I say "we" even if we Europeans are probably not part of that pronoun for you. Terrorism threatens us too though, not just Americans. Terrorism or intelligence experts might be able to tell what the consequences of the war in Iraq will be, I trust neither MSM nor your blog.
The longterm presence of US bases is a major plus. There are many different reasons for this, but the main being that Iraq is an excellent springboard to other problem areas in the region. The mere threat of that can quell adventurist tendencies among the leaders in the region. If Iraq became too peaceful too fast, there would be less justification for the continued presence of US bases (that's realpolitik for you).
As to terrorist activity increasing elsewhere, it still hasn't happened (except in Europe, but that's due to the structural deficiencies of European welfare states). Iraq is too much of a locus of the terrorists' neurotic obsessions, - the Baghdad Caliphate plays a major role in their take on history - and as long as it remains so, the better.
If there is a blowback, it will perhaps hit Europe, mostly. Europe's approach on the war on terror being what it is, that wouldn't be surprising. Most Islamists, I think, know that any further hits on America will simply be met with more crushing force. Considering Al Qaeda's massive losses in recent years, I tend to think they'll concentrate on the softer, European targets.
Sorry Finnpundit but I can no longer read the biased Israeli supporting dribble that flows from your mouth. Do you really believe the war is going well? That US presence will help in the long term? That oil money is going to Iraqi people? That US presence will deter "adventurist tendencies" in the region? Well, lets talk post Iran Nuke and we can then review US stupidity in the region. The failure of US foreign policy and arrogance towards the peope will be their downfall. Getting into an unwinable war with no boundries that has only uprooted any chance of stability in the region will undoubtably be GWB's legacy. It will also continue to do harm to the US and her allies (of which I am one) for the forseeable future. Only after the US retreats (disengages) and the Iranians and Syrians are included in the process will we see any hope of a lasting and working peace in the Middle East. That security, not to mention the economic benefits of cheap free flowing oil is surely good to the US.......
I'd say your comment is more akin to dribble, as it doesn't even address any facts in a comprehensible way, and equates imaginative futuristic predictions as if they're some kind of proof.
But no matter, you're free not to read any more comments.
Well well. What was the lesson of the day? To get out of Iraq with our pride and asses in tact, seek the help of Syria and Iran? Now, is your war still going well? So does this address facts "in a comprehensible way" or maybe "equates imaginative futuristic predictions" in a way you can understand it? Tell that to your ally Blair and the other backroom experts all telling GWB and his cronies how they've screwed it up. But no, I guess you're right and all the regional experts (and Pentagon experts FTM)are wrong. You'd know ;)
Really, I like your economic ideas and your disdain for this welfare state we find ourselves in but please, drop the Pro-US BS and look at the world being created by this doctrine of hate.
Back already? That certainly didn't take long.
The present strategy assessments are a normal part of any military endeavor, and don't detract in any way from the geopolitical benefits of a US presence in Iraq. MSM is simply trying to amplify their interpretation of the recent meetings, for their own political purposes. Obviously, you're completely used to following their lead, instead of thinking about things independently of guidance from Main Stream Media.
And who controls the MSM? Tell me, in laymans terms what the "geopolitical benefits of a US presence in Iraq" actually are? You might like to tell a few people in your own nation (and mine too) this at the same time. Just be ready to sit down and negotiate a disengagement (sounds better than retreat, like Vietnam) with Iran and Syria. Just keep a nuclear program and Hezzbolah in Lebanon in mind at the table and all will be fine. Kinda like a win win, don't you think.
Now, where are the WMD's? In Iran you fools..........
Post a Comment
<< Home