A rchive Date
[ 14-12-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/14/361983.aspx
Al_Qaida In Iraq
Jim Frego, Grants Pass, OR Capt. US Army (ret.)
(Sent Friday, September 14, 2007 3:30 PM)
Listening to Petraeus and Crocker this week I heard Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that, Al Qaeda will establish terrorist training camps if we leave , Al Qaeda's influence will spread to all the other nations in the region, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda.
- How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say have been killed or captured since the "SURGE" began? They could not recall!
- How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say are still in Iraq? They do not have a current estimate!
- How long did they say will it take to kill or capture the remaining Al Qaeda in Iraq? They will get to Congress in March 2008 with an Estimate!
- How has 100,000 Iraqi's per month that are being displaced from their homes since the surge began to refugee camps, other nations to other areas of the same ethnicity affected the reduction in VIOLENCE? It has had some affect but we can not quantify it.
- How long did they say will it take to "WIN" the WAR? We can only see 4 - 6 months into the future and we will not have won by then. We will give you a update in March 2008.
- Did General Petraeus say the War in Iraq was making us safer here in the homeland? He said: " I'm not sure it is making America safer."
Note:
The estimates of the size of Al Qaeda in Iraq according the Brookings Institution Iraq Index was less than 10 in January 2003, about 3000 in July 2006, and about 5000 in July 2007. The Reuters factbox talley indicates we have killed less than 200 since Jan. 2007.
The size of the Iraq Security Force is over 350,000 and over 200,000 of them can operate with minimal or no US Troop Support.What will they be doing if we draw down to a typical peacekeeping force of 45,000 troops?
President Bush mentioned Al Qaeda 14 times in his speech but weaselly or maybe more appropriately he DUCKED answering any of these questions.
What amazes me is that no President or Presidential canditate including the people at the top like Obama or Clinton, seem to know anything about the history of the region. It sometimes get said in passing that Shia's and Sunni's have killed each other in the name of religion for over 1,300 years - which is true. But for the last 400 years Sunni Turkey ruled the area being called Iraq now and was challenged by Shia Persia (now Iran) for almost all of that time. Iraq was not a country until 1922 when the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) was broken up by the victorious Allies of WWI. So militant opposing religious forces have been fighting there for the last four hundred years (that is before the Pilgrims came here).
To think that we will make a difference there if we stay 10 more years rather than 10 more months is not very logical. The three groups in Iraq (Arab Shia's, Arab Sunni's and Kurdish Sunni's)have almost nothing in common with each other culturally, historically,or politically. Everyone knows that we wil defend our own (oil) interests in the region. But to talk about nation building in an area that was not a nation, with groups that do not like each other, and to think that democracy will not simply become the tyranny of the majority - is very naive and very costly to everyone involved in this mess. It gets us nowhere to talk about victory over there. What are we going to do, convert everyone to Christianity?
It might get us somewhere to talk about a three nation solution. With the USA helping to guarantee the existence of those nations, then we could stop losing troops and money proping up a central government that does not work and that no one wants. Baghdad goes to the Shia's. The Saudi's fund and support the Sunni state, and the Kurds get a nation in which to mind their own business.
Just think four hundred years every time someone says something about how much better things are going and can go there. And think 2 - 3 billion dollars a week of our hard earned money sinking into that place week after week after week. Talk about the expense of building the bridge to nowhere. What a deal that was compared to what we are "building" now.
- 1) I was against invading Iraq in 2002. Doesn't much matter, though, as I had no vote against it in Congress. Neither did Obama. What I said in 2002 when my ass was not on the line is irrelevant. As far as him being in a Senate race - isn't that the one where his opponent dropped out due to some sort of sex scandal or dirty money or something and then was replaced at the last minute with Alan Keyes? Yeah, there's a tough race right there. Not to mention the fact that IL is pretty solidly Democratic.
- 2) If it was such an "easy" decision, why did the vast majority of our federal legislators get it wrong? It's not just Hillary, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards - it's 77 Senators and over 300 Represenatitives. And fyi - the majority of Americans at that time supported it as well. As I have said repeatedly, you cannot have it both ways. If members of Congress are supposed to vote in accord with the people, then that applies as much when you don't like what the majority thinks as when you do. Right now, everyone is screaming bloody murder because Congress is not acting fast enough to get us out of Iraq when the majority want us to withdraw, while in the next breath they blast those who voted for the invasion - which the majority of Americans then supported.
Can anyone finally, once and for all, explain that contradiction to me? I have raised this point numerous times and never once has anyone even attempted to explain why Congress was wrong to have followed the majority of Americans in the one instance but yet is villified for not doing what Americans want now.
Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, September 14, 2007 5:26 PM)
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|