Okay, to everyone who wants a 'surge' or at the very least keep current troop levels, please explain to me how that will help things. I am really curious because for the past 3 1/2 years we have had a similar number of troops in Iraq, and yet things have only gotten arguably worse. The number of attacks on US troops has risen steadily and inexorably upward. A big part of the reason the casualty numbers have not shot up at the same rates is because we have gotten somewhat better at countering some of the attacks and withdrew into fortified bases. But that only helps so much, and it does not solve the root problems like the complete lack of government, basic services and any semblance of order in many parts of the country.
How do we fix that stuff? Well, some of it is unfixable. The Iraqi's trust that the US will make things better for them is pretty much shot by now. After years of telling them it will get better there is still not much to be hopeful for. Oil production is still below prewar levels, unemployment is rampant, power is spotty, and reconstruction has been uneven and incomplete in many cases.
So what should be the goals right now? Some would argue that we need to ensure that there is a viable democratic government there. I think that the ineptitude of the current government, riddled as it is with corruption and sectarian divisions, is simply broke. The easiest way to fix it is to enforce some sort of federation on the country and divide the spoils, specifically oil. Ram it down there throats for all I care, it is probably the only solution short of putting in another ruthless dictator in charge who holds the country together by force and intimidation.
Many of you say we need to fight the 'terrorists' and make sure 'they' (who, please tell me) don't bomb the US. I ask you who the hell we are even fighting over there? To say that we need to 'kill all the terrorists' is not only a simplistic way of looking at what is happening in Iraq, but sheer and blatant ignorance. Do you all honestly think that most of the people who we are fighting are foreign terrorists? While it is a point of raging debate even among people who know a lot better than me, there is general agreement that it has never been more than a small minority. If there were a larger number why don't you hear a lot about it? Why have they not put them on display like Zarqawi? Where are they??!!!
And if you think foreign terrorists, or Iran for that matter, is behind most of the attacks on US forces then you are wrong again. While foreign elements have been behind some of the worst attacks, like some of the more spectacular car bombings and the al-Askari shrine bombing, most of the violence is brought to you by your local insurgents. Many of these guys could care less about Al-Qaeda, or Iran, or even what goes on in the next city. They just see the US as being an occupier, in their homeland. Sound familiar? Isn't that exactly why most Southerners fought for the South, because the Yankees were there? How do we fix that? Pull out? I don't see another way......getting them to like us is like trying to get that girl you really like, but doesn't like you like that, to go out with you. All the roses and chocolate in the world ain't going to get her into your bed, sorry........just ask Brett.....
What we did when we invaded is unleash the full fury of long simmering sectarian tensions that gripped the country since its artificial creation by the British after World War I. We can't fix them, they will have to settle it themselves. Simple as that, that is what the situation is over there.
And whether we like or not, we will have to leave with most of our troops sooner or later. What do you suggest we do? Leave them there for 5, 10 or 20 years? The Israelis were in southern Lebanon for 18 years and they are just as good, if not better than we are at counter-insurgency. When do we declare victory? When we kill all or most of the terrorists? How do we know when that is? When violence has dropped to acceptable levels? What exactly is that? Or better yet, leave it to the next President, preferably a Democrat some can blame our defeat on them.
We might be able to do some nice things in the short term but in the long term we are pretty screwed for now. The best scenario is to have a loose federation that gets along, somewhat, that does not drag its neighbors into a larger Mideast war (Shia (Iran) vs Sunni (Saudi) vs Kurd vs Turk vs Shia etc). It is a mess and we can't fix it, cut our losses while we still can, pull out and try and start repairing the damage we hath wrought.
Good enough for you? Oh yeah, that’s right, not for most.........well, some you just can't reach........
How do we fix that stuff? Well, some of it is unfixable. The Iraqi's trust that the US will make things better for them is pretty much shot by now. After years of telling them it will get better there is still not much to be hopeful for. Oil production is still below prewar levels, unemployment is rampant, power is spotty, and reconstruction has been uneven and incomplete in many cases.
So what should be the goals right now? Some would argue that we need to ensure that there is a viable democratic government there. I think that the ineptitude of the current government, riddled as it is with corruption and sectarian divisions, is simply broke. The easiest way to fix it is to enforce some sort of federation on the country and divide the spoils, specifically oil. Ram it down there throats for all I care, it is probably the only solution short of putting in another ruthless dictator in charge who holds the country together by force and intimidation.
Many of you say we need to fight the 'terrorists' and make sure 'they' (who, please tell me) don't bomb the US. I ask you who the hell we are even fighting over there? To say that we need to 'kill all the terrorists' is not only a simplistic way of looking at what is happening in Iraq, but sheer and blatant ignorance. Do you all honestly think that most of the people who we are fighting are foreign terrorists? While it is a point of raging debate even among people who know a lot better than me, there is general agreement that it has never been more than a small minority. If there were a larger number why don't you hear a lot about it? Why have they not put them on display like Zarqawi? Where are they??!!!
And if you think foreign terrorists, or Iran for that matter, is behind most of the attacks on US forces then you are wrong again. While foreign elements have been behind some of the worst attacks, like some of the more spectacular car bombings and the al-Askari shrine bombing, most of the violence is brought to you by your local insurgents. Many of these guys could care less about Al-Qaeda, or Iran, or even what goes on in the next city. They just see the US as being an occupier, in their homeland. Sound familiar? Isn't that exactly why most Southerners fought for the South, because the Yankees were there? How do we fix that? Pull out? I don't see another way......getting them to like us is like trying to get that girl you really like, but doesn't like you like that, to go out with you. All the roses and chocolate in the world ain't going to get her into your bed, sorry........just ask Brett.....
What we did when we invaded is unleash the full fury of long simmering sectarian tensions that gripped the country since its artificial creation by the British after World War I. We can't fix them, they will have to settle it themselves. Simple as that, that is what the situation is over there.
And whether we like or not, we will have to leave with most of our troops sooner or later. What do you suggest we do? Leave them there for 5, 10 or 20 years? The Israelis were in southern Lebanon for 18 years and they are just as good, if not better than we are at counter-insurgency. When do we declare victory? When we kill all or most of the terrorists? How do we know when that is? When violence has dropped to acceptable levels? What exactly is that? Or better yet, leave it to the next President, preferably a Democrat some can blame our defeat on them.
We might be able to do some nice things in the short term but in the long term we are pretty screwed for now. The best scenario is to have a loose federation that gets along, somewhat, that does not drag its neighbors into a larger Mideast war (Shia (Iran) vs Sunni (Saudi) vs Kurd vs Turk vs Shia etc). It is a mess and we can't fix it, cut our losses while we still can, pull out and try and start repairing the damage we hath wrought.
Good enough for you? Oh yeah, that’s right, not for most.........well, some you just can't reach........
I should write for Colbert. 
