Iraq is getting complicated

Iraq is getting complicated
The situation in Iraq is growing more unfortunate by the week.  The goodwill of the Iraqi’s seems to have diminished.  Now a multitude of terrorists have found a very covenient place to kill Americans.  If the Americans pull out democracy will never be established.  If they stay they need many more troops and resources.  If the Palestinians are any indication of the resolve of the anti-American forces no amount of troops or resources will ever truly secure the area. 

We are now seeing the fruit of armed conflict.  War doesn’t always make things better. 

  1. #1 by Robert Williams on August 25, 2003 - 12:40 pm

    Now a multitude of terrorists have found a very covenient place to kill Americans.

    One theory, the “flypaper strategy”, is that this is by intent. The theory is that we purposely created a situation to give militants a target for their violence, but unlike 9/11 we largely control the location, form, and targets of the violence. Kind of like pricking a bad blister with a needle instead of letting it burst in an uncontrolled manner.

    In doing so, we have to be very careful that we don’t create more hostility in younger generations. Not that things could get too much worse I guess.

    If we can rebuild Iraq and turn it into a prosperous liberal democracy, we’ll have done the entire region a huge favor, not to mention defeating our enemies more effectively than we can with a military. If we stay and don’t rebuild, or if we withdraw, I think it will be catastrophic.

  2. #2 by Leighton Tebay on August 25, 2003 - 2:11 pm

    There aren’t a lot of properous liberal democracies in the middle east. I don’t believe any amount of foreign intervention can make that happen. We in the west need to consider that our form of government isn’t the best one of all peoples.

    I’m afraid that Iraq will be Vietnam for a new generation.

  3. #3 by Michael Fox on August 25, 2003 - 6:35 pm

    I do really wonder what George Bush was thinking when he started the war.

    A) weapons of mass destruction? Nope, the NSA, CIA and others knew that the letter tying Iraq to Africa for Uranium was a hoax. (this didn’t stop them from using it to coax reluctant senators into voting for the war)

    B) Ties to Alkaida? Nope, Alkaida are Sheite muslims, Sodam was Suney and even publicly executed Sheite Ihatolas. They would have put the bullet in him for the Americans but for his direct male line decendency from the prophet.

    C) Oil? Maybe, France and Russia were ready to agree to war to remove Sodam if they could keep control of the oil feilds in which their companies were working. The US said no and so France and Russia prepared to veto the war.

    D) “They tried to kill my daddy!” Well, that’s what one of my friends thinks and I’m starting to agree with him.

  4. #4 by linsaymartens on August 25, 2003 - 11:28 pm

    George Bush Sr. is quoted in a 1998 Time Magazine article (Brent Scowcroft) as saying …

    “Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the U.N.’s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”

Comments are closed.