Monday, July 09, 2007

The Surge

The New York Times is for withdrawal of U.S. troops from most of Iraq, except maybe the Kurdish north. Even the promising Anbar-type initiatives--which seem to require an aggressive U.S. military presence--are apparently to be abandoned. The Times admits the result of the withdrawal will "most likely" be chaos, including "further ethnic cleansing, even genocide." But it still prefers withdrawal. Jules Crittenden finds this morally curious, and so do I. ... I could be convinced that withdrawal is justified because the ensuing burst of sectarian killing will be short, followed by relative stability--preferable, in the long run, to continued occupation. I could be convinced we should abandon the goal of a unitary Iraqi state and focus on some sort of engineered partition. I hope I couldn't be convinced that we should abandon Iraqis to "genocide" just because the resulting deaths can be blamed on Bush. Does that mean they don't count? . ...Link

2 comments:

Ray said...

Each loss of life, American and Iraqi is difficult to hear about and obviously agony for family and friends. However, fighting for freedom and against an evil is a fight worth fighting.

IMHO, the strategy for achieving the peace in Iraq is finally correct. To effect the strategy, it may be necessary for the US Congress to stay in permanent recess until the next Congressional elections, next year.

This would support the only desire of most in Congress. A permanent recess would enable them to run for re-election and raise campaign funds. They sure don't seem to be interested in social security reform, tax reform, immigration reform, healthcare reform, to name a few. A permanent recess would spare citizens from needless interference and spending. Just think of the savings on the negation of earmarks alone.

Ron Ballew said...

Well said!