Yesterday Gen. Petraeus brought a report of how things are going in the war in Iraq to the Senate Armed Forces Committee. All 3 presidential candidates (Clinton, McCain, Obama) made statements and posed questions to the good general and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Patriots all, in my estimation.
The marathon back and forth offered very little in new information. The surge has had some success in some areas as we have already been told, but there remain many problems yet to be solved, which we also already knew. The general fended off many attempts to get him to project some date for completion of our mission in Iraq. One problem being that the mission seems to have evolved over time. What started as a gung-ho, kick butt military operation to depose Saddam Hussein and get control of imagined weapons of mass destruction that was supposed to be over in 6 months, has become a muddled, imprecise, quagmire of nation building, tribal mediation, economic development and law enforcement. Iraqi government officials are milking our presence and largesse to their advantage as much as possible as they drag out the process of solving their big issues. Why should they spend their resources to sustain the country as long as we are willing to foot the bill?
Barack Obama offered parameters that may help us get a sense of how to measure our progress. On one end of the scale is the Bush-Cheney-McCain ideal that Iraq somehow morph into a stable democracy, a beacon of freedom and civil rights in the heart of the middle east, and an oil rich friend of the United States. By any reasonable estimation that will take decades to happen if it is even possible. On the other end of the scale is the situation that exists now which Obama described as: "a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an al-Qaida base."
So there you have it. After more than 5 years during which more than 4000 American service personnel have been killed (not to mention ally losses and many thousands of civilians), at a cost of a half trillion dollars, what we have to show for it is a messy, sloppy status quo with ongoing violence and rampant corruption. And no end is in sight.
Whose idea was this? I don't get it.
2 comments:
Well, there you have it. On the whole, a decent description of the tragedy in which we (and Iraq) find ourselves. There are certainly no easy answers. Whether right or wrong (more the latter in my opinion), the real question is: where do we go from here?
There is one thing you said that made me raise an eyebrow. You wrote, "What started as a gung-ho, kick butt military operation to depose Saddam Hussein and get control of imagined weapons of mass destruction that was supposed to be over in 6 months, has become a muddled, imprecise, quagmire of nation building, tribal mediation, economic development and law enforcement."
It's the word "imagined" that I'm curious about. Do you think that's all they were? Imagined? Nearly everyone in the region (diplomats and politicians aside) knows/believes that Saddam did, in fact, have WMD's and shipped them off to Syria just prior to the invasion. This fact is corroborated by numurous witnesses, including one of Saddam's former top generals, Georges Sada (see http://www2.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1).
It seems Saddam expected another invasion like the one in 1991, and that at some point he would regain control of his country and bring the weapons back. I guess he's probably gotten over his surprise at what really happened by now.
I'm curious as to your thoughts about this. Anyway, that issue aside, your blog is, as usual, insightful, interesting and thought-provoking. I love you lots and am proud to be your son!
Appreciated your take on the situation in Iraq. I also appreciated the announced "policy solutions" as set forth by Bush, Cheney and McCain. Now I'm anxiously awaiting to hear Obama's solution to the very complex issues of the Middle East. I'm waiting...
Post a Comment