05 November 2006

Iraq - agreement means trouble

Years ago, almost everyone agreed that we should invade Iraq. Pundits, politicians and the common person all agreed. Today that agreement has shattered after a brutal encounter of policy with reality.

Today, almost everyone agrees that we should build up Iraqi defense and security forces. Pundits, politicians, and the common person all agree that this is the predecessor to our exit from Iraq. This commonly held, never thought-through opinion will prove just as faulty as the decision to invade.

Already the long-oppressed, now in rule Shia are using their official power to take revenge on Sunnis. Even medical staff is killing wounded Sunnis in the hospital. Hatred of America is widespread. Iraq has descended into a Civil War.

So, how can it be that the only real agreement about Iraq is that these people should have more sophisticated weaponry, more knowledge of military strategy and tactics, and better military communication equipment? Into this kind of situation the consensus is that we need to provide more military capability? We really think that people intent on genocide will right their ways if only they had a stronger military?

Some days it is harder than others to be a populist.

1 comment:

Eric said...

Supposedly we played out the entire war in a scenario back in 1999. The same results.

I don't think invading Iraq was a good idea. However since the choice was made, I think we should have gone into it more realistically. It seems all of the recent conficts are not able to be fought in conventional means, and I'm not sure we have the unconventional methods down yet.