The Iraq Conundrum

Fight or
light

Showdown

US military may join Iraq against militia leaders: The Boston Globe. Bush authorization could spark deadly confrontations, By Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender, Globe Staff, January 14, 2007.

WASHINGTON -- US military officials say the Bush administration has given them new authority to target leaders of political and religious militias in Iraq who are implicated in sectarian violence,





including the powerful Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Such a showdown, key to Bush's plan to increase the number of US troops in Baghdad, could spark a deadly confrontation with Shi'ite militias, which enjoy widespread popularity in Shi'ite neighborhoods. It could also erode support for the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has agreed to the plan.

Senior US and Iraqi officials said last week that Maliki has pledged to confront the militias with the help of additional US troops. But many analysts doubt that Maliki has the will or the firepower to take on Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the tit-for-tat violence in the capital.

In recent months, Maliki and other top Iraqi officials routinely vetoed US raids on Sadr's operations, fearing the reaction of his legion of followers. Maliki's government kept a list of militia leaders who were off-limits to US troops, a senior Pentagon official told reporters in a background briefing in Washington, but now Maliki has agreed that the list would no longer be used.

Bush said on his recent 60 Minutes interview:

click to show/hide the rest of the post

"I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better."

Questioned about the instability in Iraq, Bush said: "Well, no question decisions have made things unstable."

And in his most recent radio address:

Bush said choices made after invasion eroded Iraq's security:

Bush also said his new plan could succeed, because, "American forces will have a green light to enter neighborhoods that are home to those fueling sectarian violence." Until now, US forces have been restricted by the Iraqi prime minister from operating freely in the Sadr City area that is home to a powerful Shi'ite militia. But Bush said those restrictions had been lifted and that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has promised that he would not tolerate interference with security operations."

Does This Mean We are Finally Going to Start Fighting in Iraq?

This whole development is astonishing to me. It illustrates that my charge that we have been fighting a politically correct war has been correct. This is shameful. This is only one part of the war, and in it, we have been prohibited from going after the real troublemakers in Iraq by the Maliki government.

click to hide most of this post

What Bush Should Have Done

Bush should have said, "Look Mr. Maliki, do you want us to stay here in Iraq? If you do, then this is what we must do to win this war. If you don't want to let us do these things, then we have no choice but to leave."

Instead, Bush allowed our troops to stay in the danger zone with their hands tied behind their backs. Another example of Bush trying to be a diplomat, a good guy.

Yes, I know that I am not privy to details on the ground, and that things are not as simple as I am making them. I also realize that going after renegade Shias might ultimately topple Maliki. My answer is that Maliki will fall anyway if things continue as they are.

Also, things are not as complicated as they are making them either. The proof of this is that Maliki, out of desperation, has finally agreed to let the U.S. troops fight like they need to. This could have happened years ago, if Bush had been demanding and tough as nails, which is what we need there.

We ought to be fighting to win, without regard to politics. Until and when we do this, we cannot progress in such a morass of a war. Can you believe that Bush and the military leaders cannot see this?

Remember MacArthur? The guy went too far, but he knew how to win wars. Patton? Eishenhower?

Now, instead, we have Bush, ordering our troops not to make anyone unhappy, while they are sitting ducks for I.E.D.'s and snipers.

Give me our unleashed WWII commanders, or our unfettered Sherman or Grant.

If not, then let's get out.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post:
Iraq, Iraq War, Shia, Sunni, Moqtada al-Sadr, Nour Kamel al-Maliki, Mahdi Army, MacArthur, Patton, Eisnehower, Sherman, Grant

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Con and Pro on the New Bush Plan for Iraq

Bush plan for Iraq: 20,000 new troops; Iraqi control by November.

Considering the New Plan

I believe that paz y amour's response to yesterday's post Scoundrel-osity, about the Democratic demogoging of the issue of the new Bush plan for Iraq, is a good explanation of one way of thinking about Bush's idea to inject 20,000 new troops into the Iraq situation. I'll use paz' response as the first part of this post, and then I'll add my take on Bush's plan. Don't forget to check out paz' blog, the path.

One Argument Against the Plan: paz y amour

Forgive me for saying that I saw this post coming a mile away once I saw Eddie Kennedy spouting off about hijacking funding. I have to agree that he's being despicable with this latest antic. At the same time though, I feel another "Why Bush is an Idiot" post coming on. Here's my take on the whole "surge" idea:

Military Advice

A) Apparently, there is a large contingency of GENERALS and MILITARY leaders at the Pentagon saying that an increase of troops of only 20 thousand is a bad idea.




These are the people who have been shot/shot at in combat, know military strategy better than any of us and are the ones that should be trusted, right?

click to show/hide the rest of this section

The Baker Commission

B) A bipartisan committee of past presidential cabinet members came up with a series of suggestions to help the current president through this mess. These are people who have successfully worked through international crises in the past and are people who's opinions SHOULD be trusted, right?

and

Iraqi Cooperation

C) Military leaders are going along with this plan contingent on (yet another) promise from the Iraqi government to give full cooperation and support politically and militarily. This "promise" should be trusted, right? Uhh, right....

Troop Morale

Despite the reservations and recommendations of the military and Iraq committee, the president wants to INSTEAD slowly put more troops into Iraq- meaning the SAME soldiers are RETURNING to Iraq before they planned/intended to. That's a surefire way to boost morale!

A Bad Plan and a Lack of Leadership

Obviously we don't have the numbers on the ground to overrun an insurgency and another 20 thousand isn't significant enough. We'd probably need 200 thousand to make a difference (in Gulf War 1, we had 600 thousand troops!). The problem isn't in a lack of political support, lack of funding or a lack of materials, it's a lack of LEADERSHIP. The president has shown his ineptitude in this conflict (as you will agree) and obviously STILL has no viable plan to make it as successful as possible. I just wish those "demagogues" (Eddie et al.) would say that the "plan" to put a few more troops on the ground sucks and a much better one needs to be put into place rather than trying to use political muscle to get Bush to capitulate.

paz y amour

click to hide most of this section

One Argument For the Plan: Rock

I'm not going to go into great detail in defending the plan, as I really am ignorant of many inside details that would be necessary for me to say with confidence that it would or wouldn't work.

Valid Arguments Against the Deployment

Paz' major points that 20,000 troops will not be enough and that our troops are already deployed to the breaking point are valid. I've heard one estimation that we would need about 100,000 additional troops just in Baghdad alone to secure that city.

The Iraqi Variable

The one variable, though, that could save the day is Iraqi cooperation with the plan.



The Iraqis are not dumb. They see the writing on the wall. They follow American politics closely, and know that the American people have had it with the war and will not tolerate much more of it.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

Part of the plan is to transfer complete control over Iraqi security to Iraqi forces by November. This is the great unknown. Can the Iraqi's do it? Are they willing to do it? Their military and police are riddled with traitors to the cause, insurgents in hiding who "protect" the Iraqi people during the day, and kill them at night. Is Malaki willing to go after these folks and rid the military and police of them? Is he willing to take on Moqtada al-Sadr, the enemy of peace?

This is the major test for Iraq. American impatience with the war might be a good thing, in that it kicks Maliki in the butt and lets him know it's now or never for him. It's do or die for Iraqi democracy under a unified government. Time has run out.

Safety for Our Troops

I think giving Maliki until November is a reasonable time period. In the meantime, while 20,000 more troops is not enough, it will make our soldiers safer. Despite this, this year will be the bloodiest of all in Iraq, as the insurgents smell victory, and will step up their attacks. Adding 20,000 troops will not tamp down the violence so much as prevent the violence from killing even more Americans than would occur without the troops.

Those opposed to the deployment want our "footprint" in the area to decrease, so that we are perceived less as the occupiers. This makes sense. However, the insurgents are not dumb either. They know our footprint is decreasing anyway, despite the extra 20,000 troops. They know their main enemy now are Iraqis, not Americans. That's why I don't think the extra 20,000 troops will anger anyone more than they are angry now. The effect will mainly be to help keep some semblance of order, to allow the Iraqi government to gear up, and to protect American soldiers from suffering any more casualties than is necessary.

Troop Morale

Whose morale are we talking about? If you are a National Guard and your length of service in Iraq is extended, or if you are activated to go there, your morale might not be high, this I grant. However, do ask the troops on the ground what they think too. I believe that if you query American soldiers on the ground whether a troop increase is a good thing or not, more than 90% of them will say it is a good thing. If I were there, I'd want more buddies around me, wouldn't you?

click to hide most of this section

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: New Bush Plan for Iraq, Iraq, Iraq War, Maliki, Moqtada al-Sadr, Edward Kennedy, the Baker Commission, the Iraq Study Group, 20,000 more troops

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth