Declare victory and bring them home
We've passed the trheshold of anything that happens in IRaq that results in civilian casualties, no matter the truth or circumstances, is going to automaticaly be not only seen negatively by the Iraqi people, but will be increasingly endorsed and pushed by the elected government. With democracy comes pandering, and boy will they pander.
If we stay in Iraq one more year or five more years, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two timelines except less US and Iraqi civilian casualties. For one, with us gone, there's that much fewer 'collateral damage' simply because we're no longer there to be attacked. We're also no longer there to cause damage by our actions against insurgents.
Elected Iraqi officials are proclaiming that "resistance" against the occupation is a legitimate action uner international law. I could look for the quote, but I posted it in another thread before. Was some parlamintarian knob. The point being, members of the elected government are saying reissitance to our occupation is legitimate. It's time to leave.
The Iraqi's won't be any better prepared than we can make them if we aren't patriling the streets. Bush has already said he won't spend anymore on reconstruction, so they're screwed on that. When they're forced to rebuild their own country, which they should have had the chance to do form the start, then they'll start protecting it more when it's theirs that they're fighting for, not Haliburtons.
The claimed security we provide by being there does not, IMO, outwiegh the downside of increased attacks against us and the inevitable splash damage we do on our own, not to mention simple traffic accidents in an operational war zone.
We leave, and the vast majority of targets for the insurgents leave. The main reason for their even being there leaves with us. We're too far in debt, we're too overdrawn, we're crippling our military, and it's going to take decades to build our fighting strength back up to pre-war levels in both hardware and manpower. We won, Saddams gone, let's go home.
If we stay in Iraq one more year or five more years, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two timelines except less US and Iraqi civilian casualties. For one, with us gone, there's that much fewer 'collateral damage' simply because we're no longer there to be attacked. We're also no longer there to cause damage by our actions against insurgents.
Elected Iraqi officials are proclaiming that "resistance" against the occupation is a legitimate action uner international law. I could look for the quote, but I posted it in another thread before. Was some parlamintarian knob. The point being, members of the elected government are saying reissitance to our occupation is legitimate. It's time to leave.
The Iraqi's won't be any better prepared than we can make them if we aren't patriling the streets. Bush has already said he won't spend anymore on reconstruction, so they're screwed on that. When they're forced to rebuild their own country, which they should have had the chance to do form the start, then they'll start protecting it more when it's theirs that they're fighting for, not Haliburtons.
The claimed security we provide by being there does not, IMO, outwiegh the downside of increased attacks against us and the inevitable splash damage we do on our own, not to mention simple traffic accidents in an operational war zone.
We leave, and the vast majority of targets for the insurgents leave. The main reason for their even being there leaves with us. We're too far in debt, we're too overdrawn, we're crippling our military, and it's going to take decades to build our fighting strength back up to pre-war levels in both hardware and manpower. We won, Saddams gone, let's go home.
posted by opus512 at 8:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home