Originally posted on WHYS as feature blog.
Signs Things Aren’t Going Well In Iraq.
In the midst of all this election mud flinging, there are a few stories of importance being missed. There is one in particular that bothers me. How come nobody is talking about the fact that Turkey invaded Iraq last week. The Iraqis government is not happy about it, but seems powerless. The AP version of the story can be found here (Iraq Demands Turkish Withdrawal).
Didn’t the whole Iraqis citizenry vote for a government? As an American I can tell you that most people will agree that our government’s first responsibility is to provide military protection against foreign invading forces. What kind of sovereign nation with control over it's own destiny has another countries invading forces running operation inside of it's borders? How can a people be expected to give loyalty to the government if the government can't stop a foreign army from entering and fighting with their population? What if Ireland popped into England and blew up a few cities with no response from London? What if Canada invaded Maine with no response from Washington?
The current administration routinely touts the success of the latest media catch phrase, “The Surge”. How can they say they are “meeting their objectives” when another country is invading one area of the country they are “liberating”? The Kurdish region has been cited as the biggest example of success in Iraq. A typical report can be found here. (U.S. ambassador calls Kurdish region 'shining example' of the way Iraq should be). If your most successful region is being bombarded by a foreign military, what does that say about your chances of standing up for yourself? Why can’t the US troops stop them?
If you combine this recent example that things are not so rosy in Iraq, with a few other indicators, it should lead to questions. One of these that seemed to also slip by this week was that “Muqtada al-Sadr extends cease-fire”. What? Ok so you have a foreign government invading and dropping bombs on cities in the north AND you have a band of non-governmental renegades vowing to “extend” the cease fire, for now. Could you imagine if a private militia in say Waco Texas decided that it would operate outside the laws of the US government? My guess is that they would burn the compound down. A “ceasefire?” How about the Iraqi government declares him a criminal and arrests him? That is what most working government would do.
From a little while back we see yet more evidence that things are not going well in Iraq. The US strategy changed to arming the people who were recently shooting at our soldiers. (US arms Sunni dissidents in risky bid to contain al-Qaida fighters in Iraq.) This was to the opposition of the Iraqis government. So even the US’s own political machine is undermining the validity of the elected government. Were the Sunnis the people that the US originally invaded Iraq to remove from power?
Al-Qaida has never made up more then 3% of the overall attacks in Iraq. The truth is that they have increased attacks throughout the Middle East and the world 10 fold or more since the US has went on the offensive against them and made them famous. If this is success, I sure would hate to see failure.
The lowering of troop casualties, decrease in troops, ceremonial handing off of empty cities, and talk of elections seems to have a dishonest feel. This whole thing reminds me of this stuff you can buy for your car that is an “engine treatment”. The engine treatment is designed to last just long enough to sell the car to the next sucker. Try to come back on them and they will say, "It worked fine when we sold it to you." It will be you that people are cursing as they see the obnoxious trail of white smoke you left behind. It will be the democrats that catch the blame for the civil war and poor intelligence finding of this administration.
But then again the media is biased and only highlights the negatives.
Signs Things Aren’t Going Well In Iraq.
In the midst of all this election mud flinging, there are a few stories of importance being missed. There is one in particular that bothers me. How come nobody is talking about the fact that Turkey invaded Iraq last week. The Iraqis government is not happy about it, but seems powerless. The AP version of the story can be found here (Iraq Demands Turkish Withdrawal).
Didn’t the whole Iraqis citizenry vote for a government? As an American I can tell you that most people will agree that our government’s first responsibility is to provide military protection against foreign invading forces. What kind of sovereign nation with control over it's own destiny has another countries invading forces running operation inside of it's borders? How can a people be expected to give loyalty to the government if the government can't stop a foreign army from entering and fighting with their population? What if Ireland popped into England and blew up a few cities with no response from London? What if Canada invaded Maine with no response from Washington?
The current administration routinely touts the success of the latest media catch phrase, “The Surge”. How can they say they are “meeting their objectives” when another country is invading one area of the country they are “liberating”? The Kurdish region has been cited as the biggest example of success in Iraq. A typical report can be found here. (U.S. ambassador calls Kurdish region 'shining example' of the way Iraq should be). If your most successful region is being bombarded by a foreign military, what does that say about your chances of standing up for yourself? Why can’t the US troops stop them?
If you combine this recent example that things are not so rosy in Iraq, with a few other indicators, it should lead to questions. One of these that seemed to also slip by this week was that “Muqtada al-Sadr extends cease-fire”. What? Ok so you have a foreign government invading and dropping bombs on cities in the north AND you have a band of non-governmental renegades vowing to “extend” the cease fire, for now. Could you imagine if a private militia in say Waco Texas decided that it would operate outside the laws of the US government? My guess is that they would burn the compound down. A “ceasefire?” How about the Iraqi government declares him a criminal and arrests him? That is what most working government would do.
From a little while back we see yet more evidence that things are not going well in Iraq. The US strategy changed to arming the people who were recently shooting at our soldiers. (US arms Sunni dissidents in risky bid to contain al-Qaida fighters in Iraq.) This was to the opposition of the Iraqis government. So even the US’s own political machine is undermining the validity of the elected government. Were the Sunnis the people that the US originally invaded Iraq to remove from power?
Al-Qaida has never made up more then 3% of the overall attacks in Iraq. The truth is that they have increased attacks throughout the Middle East and the world 10 fold or more since the US has went on the offensive against them and made them famous. If this is success, I sure would hate to see failure.
The lowering of troop casualties, decrease in troops, ceremonial handing off of empty cities, and talk of elections seems to have a dishonest feel. This whole thing reminds me of this stuff you can buy for your car that is an “engine treatment”. The engine treatment is designed to last just long enough to sell the car to the next sucker. Try to come back on them and they will say, "It worked fine when we sold it to you." It will be you that people are cursing as they see the obnoxious trail of white smoke you left behind. It will be the democrats that catch the blame for the civil war and poor intelligence finding of this administration.
But then again the media is biased and only highlights the negatives.
Comments