Our problems in Iraq are now becoming apparent to more and more people; the problem is that people on both sides of the political aisle are speaking the truth. Take the simple debate of withdrawing troops; one side of the political aisle says that if we withdraw, Al Quaida will claim victory.
The other side says that if we stay, Al Quaida will continue to say that we are occupying a mid-east country for oil, and Al Quaida will continue to use that occupation for recruitment purposes.
The problem of course is that both things are true. No matter what we do, Al Quaida will claim either victory or moral superiority. It is the nature of the insurgent struggle that they should do this. It is also part of the struggle that either option now has no clear ending, and neither option has a good ending in sight.
We can stay, and we can keep the violence tamped down to an unreasonable level - but the tensions that exist between the Sunni and Shiite populations of Iraq will not simply disappear in the next year. What good will it do, if we stay there for ten years with 30,000 American troops dead and a couple hundred thousand wounded if when we leave they devolve into civil war anyway?
On the other hand, if we withdraw completely or withdraw to isolated bases and use our troops only for force protection, training, border protection and anti Al Quaida operations and hundreds of thousands more civilian deaths mount from the escalating civil war, who would think that was a good solution?
I doubt the Iraqi's would, and once again Al Quaida and other extremists would use our actions against us.
The bleak truth is this; no matter what we do our enemies will use our actions against us, because we have painted ourselves into a corner and few actions we take can be justified. The reason for that is the reason for the war in the first place.
I do not care about the arguments of weapons of mass destruction, or whether Saddam was a bad, evil person. There was a reason he had the resources to pursue those weapons, and there was a reason the US Government at one time supported Saddam - just as we now support many other horrible regimes, the Saudis among them.
That reason is oil, and it is never mentioned in the debate about Iraq.
Ask yourself why that is, and you will begin to see the true problem that all the ancillary problems stem from; the President himself talked of our addiction to oil, and has not mentioned it since. Neither has anyone else in any meaningful sense.
I watched on the public news tonight the names and faces of 12 soldiers who had died in Iraq, young and middle aged, white, black and Hispanic - they died for country and freedom, but the reason they were sent to the deserts of Iraq was because of one thing, in the end - and that thing is our addiction to oil, and our willingness as a nation to do whatever it takes to keep that supply flowing freely.
The other side says that if we stay, Al Quaida will continue to say that we are occupying a mid-east country for oil, and Al Quaida will continue to use that occupation for recruitment purposes.
The problem of course is that both things are true. No matter what we do, Al Quaida will claim either victory or moral superiority. It is the nature of the insurgent struggle that they should do this. It is also part of the struggle that either option now has no clear ending, and neither option has a good ending in sight.
We can stay, and we can keep the violence tamped down to an unreasonable level - but the tensions that exist between the Sunni and Shiite populations of Iraq will not simply disappear in the next year. What good will it do, if we stay there for ten years with 30,000 American troops dead and a couple hundred thousand wounded if when we leave they devolve into civil war anyway?
On the other hand, if we withdraw completely or withdraw to isolated bases and use our troops only for force protection, training, border protection and anti Al Quaida operations and hundreds of thousands more civilian deaths mount from the escalating civil war, who would think that was a good solution?
I doubt the Iraqi's would, and once again Al Quaida and other extremists would use our actions against us.
The bleak truth is this; no matter what we do our enemies will use our actions against us, because we have painted ourselves into a corner and few actions we take can be justified. The reason for that is the reason for the war in the first place.
I do not care about the arguments of weapons of mass destruction, or whether Saddam was a bad, evil person. There was a reason he had the resources to pursue those weapons, and there was a reason the US Government at one time supported Saddam - just as we now support many other horrible regimes, the Saudis among them.
That reason is oil, and it is never mentioned in the debate about Iraq.
Ask yourself why that is, and you will begin to see the true problem that all the ancillary problems stem from; the President himself talked of our addiction to oil, and has not mentioned it since. Neither has anyone else in any meaningful sense.
I watched on the public news tonight the names and faces of 12 soldiers who had died in Iraq, young and middle aged, white, black and Hispanic - they died for country and freedom, but the reason they were sent to the deserts of Iraq was because of one thing, in the end - and that thing is our addiction to oil, and our willingness as a nation to do whatever it takes to keep that supply flowing freely.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment