Sunday, November 19, 2006

The Iraq situation

Call me stubborn, but I still believe that overthrowing Saddam was the right thing to do. That said, I realize democratic nation-building in Iraq has turned into a fiasco. We are partially to blame—partially.

We tried to fight the war on the cheap. It is apparent we needed more boots on the ground to pacify the country. Perhaps we should never have disbanded the Iraqi military? I could go on and on.

But, the bulk of the blame lies at the feet of the Iraqis, and specifically the Sunni and Shia (The Kurds are doing quite well). Blame also goes to the outside Arab world, which has done much to ensure the Iraq democracy experiment fails.

There is a lot of blame to go around and things are not going to plan. Only the willfully myopic won’t admit that. But again, it doesn’t invalidate the original aim. If Saddam was still in power I believe the US would be in a worse situation than we are now. Prior to the invasion Saddam was on the cusp of breaking out of the sanctions all together. The world community had no stomach for enforcing its own Security Council resolutions. The French and the Russians were lining up to make lucrative oil deals with Saddam. His evil sons were well on their way to taking power after his death. According to translated Iraqi documents, Saddam was as little as one year away from building a working nuclear device. All the know-how for other WMD’s was there and could have been activated with a simple order.

I am not entirely disappointed by the results of the midterm elections. It’s good to bring the Democrats on board and let some of the responsibility for Iraq fall in their lap too. Let’s not forget, many Democrats also voted for the war. Further, it might not be such a bad idea for the Maliki government to feel the pressure, to know we won’t be there forever and hopefully start to get its house in order.

Finally, the problem with Iran is not going to go away. Come what may, I believe this country will best be served by having unity in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat. If the decision to take military action is made, it will be better if it’s a bipartisan decision. With the Democrats wielding significant political power, they will have to take considerable responsibility regarding how to react to the Iranian threat.


Blogger Solomon2 said...

For Iraqis to fail at achieving a democracy was a possibility, yet it need not be a U.S. failure: Why is the U.S. in Iraq?

5:03 PM  
Blogger airforcewife said...

I felt a lot better when the Pelosi wing lost their recent bid for a post for Murtha.

As to the situation in Iraq MAJ Egland wrote an absolutely spot on article in NRO, which is coming out in book format. My hubby has corresponded with Egland, and so far all the Iraq/Afghan vets I have spoken to were squarly behind his rec'dations.

I'm to techno-tarded to give you the link here, all pretty and hidden in an appropriate clickable saying... But it's on Blackfive.

6:59 PM  
Blogger semite1973 said...


I was quite shocked when I read that Polosi was nominating Murtha. It's good she got slapped down.

I just hope that Bolton gets to stay on at the UN. If the Dems. manage to oust him, it will take me a long time to forgive them.

8:56 PM  
Blogger semite1973 said...

I'd like to read this Eglad book.

8:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

see web stats