Quote:
|
what i'm saying is, we should be thinking about changing the mission, too. the mission which we've set for ourselves is honestly unrealistic, without some very serious change in how the iraqi government operates. barring such a change in the government that allows for a political solution, we can only go for a military one.
|
Restarting government enterprises would be one aspect of changing how the government operates. Or, we can just sidestep the Iraqi government entirely and create our packages if the government continues to be uncooperative.
Quote:
|
and what of the military one? right now petraeus seems to be moving away from the "superbase" strategy of earlier, to a strategy that embraces the oil-spot theory of counter-insurgency. however, surge or no, the number of troops is far too limited (and also, i'm not sure if the US public has the patience for the long years which even a successful counter-insurgency requires). strategy is finally right, resources are lacking. that's still not a recipe for success. "go big, go long, or go home." an increase in 21,500 troops unfortunately does not really count as "go big"...
|
We're stuck in the long-haul...at least until the Iraqi government is strong enough that it can actually field a relilable military/police force on its own. And if the political will doesn't exist for the long haul, then it just doesn't exist. It's not only the American deaths that bother Americans, but the near non-stop violence; bringing down the level of American troops won't affect that, and, in my opinion, is only going to aggravate that.
So, if we won't go long, we won't go long, whether it is with 125,000 troops, 125 troops, or 125 million troops.
Quote:
|
i think it would, if placed in context of a restructured mission of taking on al-qaeda in iraq. nixon got some more political maneuvering room after he started to take out the troops in vietnam. in fact, i suspect that the surge itself is a prelude to a drawdown, given public comments from many quarters (such as john mccain) that this surge in a "last chance" to get things right.
|
See above comment on violence in Iraq. A restructured mission might assist in that, of course, but we'd be lying through our teeth if we think that it is merely "Al Qaeda" causing trouble in Iraq. And what would be the purpose of even being in Iraq if we're not planning on making a nation? Americans, as far as I can tell, believe a civil war is going on, and they don't want troops in the middle of a civil war even IF they are just there to go after Al Qaeda.
Quote:
by the way, i highly doubt the shi'a leaders will leave the government- they like the control and the power that governments wield. as for the sunnis, well, they will either have to deal with the shi'a with US support, or else they're going to be crushed by the sheer weight of numbers alone. a threat of a US drawdown would hopefully be some incentive for them to deal with both the US and the iraqi government.
in the short-run, a US drawdown will probably embolden al-qaeda in iraq, but i would imagine that 60,000 US troops, freed from tiring policing duties, would make sure that they don't stay bold for long.
|
My point, though, is that they don't have to be part of the democratic process to weild power. A powerful Shi'a leader with a large militia has little incentive to listen to other people's opinions if the US can't keep him from expanding his influence.
As for the Sunnis being more willing to work with the government...perhaps, though local bonds might still be strong enough to keep them from revealing the location of extremists, and that is the real intelligence prize we want.
It's a big, big gamble.
Quote:
according to zakaria,
"Hundreds of workers still in the area showed up for work and the machines are now humming busily. There have been no attacks on the factory. "The insurgents attack people working for the police, Army or the Americans. They do not want to alienate locals trying to make ends meet," said one official working on the project."
to be sure, this is very much a chicken-or-the-egg problem, which comes first, jobs or security? but the way i lean is, if one implements enough jobs, then not only will you take unpaid, desperate men out of the streets, but also create a pool of people whose livelihoods depend on that factory running.
this gives a powerful incentive for people not to go around raising sectarian tensions, or to tolerate other people with such, as that may very well cause their OWN factory to be blown sky-high.
|
I like this last part. It appeals to my inner economist.
