Nov

20

Cure For Iraq’s Ills?

November 20, 2006 | By Sniper One |

As usual we have people calling for a larger footprint in Iraq. I guess the conventional thinking from the non-military types is that we need more people, or boots on the ground, to stabilize Iraq.

McCain also agrees that we need more boots on the ground…

(CNN) Without additional troops to ensure victory in Iraq, the U.S. could be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home, Republican Sen. John McCain said Sunday.

This opinion is not shared by the Generals at Centcom.

(Weekly Standard) Abizaid and Casey are now captive of their successes. They are rightly impressed by these improvements and hope that continuing the policy that brought them will lead to further successes. They see validation for their conviction that victory lies first, last, and always with the Iraqis. They also have an almost theological devotion to the “light footprint” theory that U.S. troop presence and visibility need to be minimized, and to the “dependency” theory that too many U.S. troops provide an excuse for Iraqis not to step up.

Abizaid and Casey haven’t rethought these views even as they’ve been mugged by the reality that lack of security does more damage than a heavy footprint, and that failure is more of a threat to responsible Iraqi behavior than dependency. But, just as important, they underestimate the changes that have occurred in Iraq since the February bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra–changes that threaten to unravel the successes achieved so far. In response to the clear fact that sectarian violence is unhinging the effort to turn responsibility for security over to the Iraqis, Abizaid simply demands an acceleration of that transition. This is a recipe for disaster.

Part of the problem with the “throw more troops” at the problem, is that, as I understand it, we don’t have more troops we can throw at it. As I understand it, we are having a hard time giving our men and women of the armed services enough state side downtime between rotations.

I will fully admit that my understanding may be wrong. I am listening to the MSM on that, and I very well may of been mislead.

Update 1: Looks like I may not be incorrect…

(CNN) Incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, agreed. “As a practical matter, there are no troops to increase with,” he said. “Our objective was to remove Saddam Hussein and create an environment in which a democracy could be established. That has been done.”

The only way we are going to get more US troops to throw at the problem, is going to be to implement Rep. Rangel’s bill to renew the draft.

(Yahoo News) Asked on CBS’ “Face the Nation” if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, “You bet your life. Underscore serious.”

“If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft,” he said.

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

I don’t believe for a second that Rep. Rangel is serious about his bill. He has voted against the draft, and then proposed his own bill to bring it back. He’s very lukewarm on the subject, no matter what he says to the press. I’ll believe his voting record before I buy what he saying.

(Yahoo News) “I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical,” he said.

In true John Kerry fashion, he voted against the draft before he introduced the bill… yet he’s the one talking about hypocrisy?

In any case, I do not believe that throwing more US troops at Iraq is the solution to the problem. This is an Iraqi problem, and the Iraqis need to stand up in larger numbers to solve it.

Until the Iraqis stand up their military to take charge of their own future, and end the sectarian violence, there is going to be little we can do but maintain the status quo.

I say that with the complete understanding that we could bomb them (the Iraqis) back into the stone age… (which isn’t a very long trip), however that also would not solve the problem.

The problem is two fold.

  • First, the problem is cultural… Sunni vs Shia. This is a battle that has been going on since the death of Mohammad. It is unlikely to be resolved overnight. It may not be an issue that can be “resolved” but there needs be a resolution between Sects to stop the Muslim on Muslim violence. (At least when they were shooting at us, it gave us a clear picture of who to shoot back at.)
  • Second, the problem is being imported from Iran and Syria. Iran is fully capable of pulling the strings on loyal Shia’s to disrupt a country’s government. We have seen them do it in Lebanon, and we are seeing them do it in Iraq. Syria is a puppet state of Iran, and thusly is part of the problem.

Our best course of action is to find a way to stop the Iranian disruption in Iraq. I am sure that the military knows how the Shia leaders are communicating with the Iraqis.

It could be something as simple as Short-Wave, or as complex as the Internet. It might even be messages carried over the border by persons loyal to the insurgency.

A good start to stopping this Iranian influence in the region would be to remove the head from the Shia militias. However, I’m sure if the military had action-able Intel against Al-Sadr, they would move against him.

In any case, many people see Al-Sadr as part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

It is the military and the President who ultimately has the responsibility to conduct our military actions in Iraq. We can Monday morning quarterback all we want, but in the end since we don’t have all the information, and never will, it is an exercise in futility.

All we can do is hope and pray that Generals Abizaid and Casey are inspired to make the right tactical decisions for America and her allies.

Also Posting:

Sphere: Related Content

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Filed Under: 110th Congress, Dhimmicrats, Global War On Terror, Hezbollah, Iran, Islam, MSM, Muqtada al-Sadr, News of the Day, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Representative Charles Rangel, Syria, al-Qaeda

  • Rhymes With Right trackbacked with Rangel Plays Politics With Military...

    • Trackback URL


    Comments

    1 Comment so far

    1. Rhymes With Right on November 20, 2006 8:59

      Rangel Plays Politics With Military…

      The United States military has functioned effectively as an all-volunteer force for three decades. Statistics show that our soldiers today are better educated, and broadly representative of the American population — and that if anything, whites from t…

    Name (required)

    Email (required)

    Website

    Speak your mind

    If your comment/trackback doesn't show up, please refer to the Comment & Trackback Policy Page.

    Bad Behavior has blocked 3618 access attempts in the last 7 days.

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.

    This site is created and edited using Dreamweaver 8.
    Posts are created using Windows Live Writer.
    We suggest viewing this site using Firefox at 1280 x 1024.