U.S. 'Surge' to Protect Government, Not Iraqi People
The expected surge in U.S. troops doesn't warrant such commotion in the U.S. Congress or Iraq. Many have forgotten that the U.S. had even more troops in Iraq in 2005, the year it became clear that there was no hope of stopping the upsurge in violence.
This surge isn't all that significant, and even if the U.S. dispatched 100,000 or 150,000 more troops, it wouldn't lead to decisive results.
Any increase in U.S. troops in Baghdad means simply putting more soldiers in harm's way. A random bullet shot from a some corner of Baghdad will have that much better chance of hitting its target.
No matter how many more troops it mobilizes for the purpose, it is exceedingly unlikely that the United States will manage to subdue Baghdad.
Watching the televised remarks of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, I could see etched on his face the worry regarding conditions in Iraq.
The latest intelligence report [National Intelligence Estimate ] provides evidence that the unity that many Iraqis aspire toward is beyond the capabilities of U.S. and Iraqi decision makers to provide.
What's going on right now is a global mobilization by the United States to protect the Iraqi government. Average Iraqis, on the other hand, anxiously stand by, waiting for the world's most powerful state to improve their living conditions. There is no sense mobilizing a huge force to revive the government when it's the Iraqi people who lack the barest necessities almost all other nations have.
It would be more logical to support the Iraqi people rather than the government. The people are the ones that would protect their government if it worked on their behalf. If the government persists with its current performance, the people themselves are capable of toppling it.
It is naive to think that the government means the people and vice-versa. That was the motto of the earlier oppressive regime.
I sympathize with the Americans in Iraq. When American generals are asked to describe the situation in the country, the have no choice but to explain that the U.S. and Iraq are at square one.
This surge isn't all that significant, and even if the U.S. dispatched 100,000 or 150,000 more troops, it wouldn't lead to decisive results.
Any increase in U.S. troops in Baghdad means simply putting more soldiers in harm's way. A random bullet shot from a some corner of Baghdad will have that much better chance of hitting its target.
No matter how many more troops it mobilizes for the purpose, it is exceedingly unlikely that the United States will manage to subdue Baghdad.
Watching the televised remarks of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, I could see etched on his face the worry regarding conditions in Iraq.
The latest intelligence report [National Intelligence Estimate ] provides evidence that the unity that many Iraqis aspire toward is beyond the capabilities of U.S. and Iraqi decision makers to provide.
What's going on right now is a global mobilization by the United States to protect the Iraqi government. Average Iraqis, on the other hand, anxiously stand by, waiting for the world's most powerful state to improve their living conditions. There is no sense mobilizing a huge force to revive the government when it's the Iraqi people who lack the barest necessities almost all other nations have.
It would be more logical to support the Iraqi people rather than the government. The people are the ones that would protect their government if it worked on their behalf. If the government persists with its current performance, the people themselves are capable of toppling it.
It is naive to think that the government means the people and vice-versa. That was the motto of the earlier oppressive regime.
I sympathize with the Americans in Iraq. When American generals are asked to describe the situation in the country, the have no choice but to explain that the U.S. and Iraq are at square one.