Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Biting the Hand that Feeds


This from the Christian Science Monitor:

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday ordered the dismantling of US and Iraqi checkpoints surrounding the area."

And why might that be?

"The checkpoints - manned by US and Iraqi troops for a week in an effort to find a kidnapped US military translator of Iraqi descent as well as snare an alleged death-squad leader - had snarled traffic and bred growing anger in the slum."

We're concerned about traffic delays and pissed-off motorists when the country is infested with guerilla fighters and murdering jihadists? This smells more of a power play to me.

"The Americans agreed with Maliki's decision to leave Sadr City because of the US elections," says a driver with the nickname Abu Haidar. "If they let [the unrest] continue, it will spread. Moqtada [al-Sadr] and Maliki played it very well."

And there is the crux of it all, boys and girls. We acquiesed to the demands of Maliki because it was a good decision tactically right? Because we want our translator back? Not so much. Turns out our withdrawl was politically calculated, just like this whole damned war.

Bottom line, politicians cannot win wars. Generals, soldiers and specialists do. Politicians are spineless slaves to opinion polls, and its nauseating. The last time politicians got too involved with a war, we had Vietnam. Get the message?

3 Comments:

Blogger Xander said...

"Turns out our withdrawl was politically calculated, just like this whole damned war."

- I agree.


"Bottom line, politicians cannot win wars. Generals, soldiers and specialists do. Politicians are spineless slaves to opinion polls, and its nauseating. The last time politicians got too involved with a war, we had Vietnam. Get the message?"

- You're right, it's a military superior to that of one's enemy that win's a war, not a politician. However it's the Politician that decides when, where, how, and with who to go to war with, and in the case of Vietnam (and perhaps in the case of our presence in Iraq as well) politicians decided when it was over. Key point here: it wasnt won, we walked away from a fight, one that most people in the country collectivly decided we shouldnt have been participating in in the first place.

Are we headed for the same outcome in Iraq? Slowly the pendulum is beginning to swing away from that apex reached the days following 9/11, because more and more people are beginning to ask the question:

Does the security of this country lie in Iraq?

9:09 PM  
Blogger Sigmatus said...

Estimates put the number of slain terrorists in Iraq at 50,000. That's the blood of 9/11 repaid almost 17 times over. I'd say that high a mound of dead barbarians is a compelling national security interest.

9:25 PM  
Blogger Xander said...

"Estimates put the number of slain terrorists in Iraq at 50,000. "

- 50,000 terrorists? Can we be sure of that? Is everyone in Iraq who picks up a gun and takes a shot at who he considers is an unwanted foreign invader a terrorist?

I agree that anyone who lifts arms against a member of our armed forces is, at the moment at the very least, an enemy to our intrests. However does that in turn make every Dick, Jane, and Akhmed in Iraq who opposes our force with force a terrorist? More importantly, were those "50,000 estimated slayings" all individuals who were a threat the security of our country?

9:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home