Casualties in Iraq
This analysis of casualties in Iraq over the course of the last several months shows a couple of things: 1) that the sky is not falling throughout Iraq, and 2) the resistance is much better trained and organized than it had been. What does all this mean? Probably that casualties will rise in the short term as we engage in more traditional, better structured skirmishes. It also likely means that the people we are fighting are either professional troops of the former Iraqi military, or are being trained by professionals from other countries such as Iran and/or Syria. My guess would be that it's a combination of the two. Neighboring hostile countries have an interest in seeing Iraq fail both in terms of their own regional security (no US on the doorstep) and as a means to influence the resulting political structure of a failed Iraq or to make land/oil grabs after the coalition abandons the project.
A major issue for any voter in November's election must be whether they want a president resolved to complete the Iraq project or one who has a promised timetable to bring all our troops home. Which vision of the Middle East would best suit the American people as a result: one in which stability and security amongst oil producing nations is achievable or one in which the wolves are left to fight it out amongst themselves as contemptable governments struggle for regional domination? Finally, wonder how long must the United States military yo-yo in and out of Middle East conflicts? Will leaving in four years mean we'll back in four more? Or will staying the course and ensuring the job is completed prevent the constant redeployment and retreat that Middle Eastern instability has thus far required? Do we finish the job (Germany/Japan) or cut and run (Vietnam/Somalia)? Ask yourself which of the countries listed in the previous sentence you'd like to visit on your next vacation.
If all of this is too depressing to think about, at least put a smile back on your face and the face of an Iraqi child by giving an Iraqi kid a toy!
A major issue for any voter in November's election must be whether they want a president resolved to complete the Iraq project or one who has a promised timetable to bring all our troops home. Which vision of the Middle East would best suit the American people as a result: one in which stability and security amongst oil producing nations is achievable or one in which the wolves are left to fight it out amongst themselves as contemptable governments struggle for regional domination? Finally, wonder how long must the United States military yo-yo in and out of Middle East conflicts? Will leaving in four years mean we'll back in four more? Or will staying the course and ensuring the job is completed prevent the constant redeployment and retreat that Middle Eastern instability has thus far required? Do we finish the job (Germany/Japan) or cut and run (Vietnam/Somalia)? Ask yourself which of the countries listed in the previous sentence you'd like to visit on your next vacation.
If all of this is too depressing to think about, at least put a smile back on your face and the face of an Iraqi child by giving an Iraqi kid a toy!
posted by Mike C | 9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home