Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilfannoush
But I'm sorry. Everything you said is not relevant to the facts on the ground. You are talking as if it was a crusade against a fascist Hitler in the second world war. It isn't. This has nothing to do with fortitude or the commitment of the US armed forces, in fact, the dogged persistence of their presence in all this time proves that they are extremely commited to accomplishing operations and doing their given duties without any complaint.
But this is the solution to the wrong problem. Again, and I cannot stress this too much, the US administration simply is not understanding the Iraqis and is not trying to.
|
I appreciate your detailed reply and your respect for our troops.
I do not disagree with you that conditions on the ground are as you describe them. I am very sympathetic to the Iraqis who are suffering on account of the insurgency. In a sense, you are right: my comments are irrelevent to conditions on the ground. But please understand that I left them out on purpose.
You have cited the conditions on the ground as the reason why the US made a mistake inavding Iraq and why it should now leave. In that context, those conditions are irrelvent to a geopolitical point of view, which I was taking. But I don't want to go into the strategic reasons why the US went into Iraq at this late hour. Suffice to say it was not because of WMD.
The question is whether the larger strategic purpose overrides consideration of conditions on the ground. I think it does, which is why it seemed to you that I was ignoring them in my post. As an ordinary individual I am very aware of them and sick to my heart at the suffering in Iraq.
However, when considering a country's vital interests, we should not be swayed by conditions on the ground. It sounds cruel but on such decisions nations rise and fall. Thus, humanitarian considerations are secondary to the overarching objective. They become important on the tactical level, but not before.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, or that hanging on is right. I am saying that as a matter of principle, if the US wants to prevail in its strategic purpose, that is, the purpose for its entering Iraq, then it must commit fully to it. The alternative is to depart orderly.
A couple of final points: Life under Saddam was not better than the life the Iraqis could now have if the insurgency and AQ had not made reconstruction nearly impossible. Also, it's doubtful the occupation would have upset the Iraqis much had the insurgency not come along. The oppressive atmosphere there is not the fault of the occupation, but the effects of trying to achieve security. The Iraqis were headed to democratic government and showed by their voting turnout that they wanted it wholeheartedly. If they are disappointed in it now, who is to blame?
Thanks for your reply.