United States Can Sustain Surge
From Voice of America:
"General George Casey told the National Press Club he wants to ease the strain on the U.S. army by ending the extended 15-month deployments to combat zones. But he says he will not be able to do that until the U.S. troop commitment to Iraq comes down.
There are currently about 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of them from the army. General Casey noted that the number will come down automatically in the spring when the deployments of the extra forces sent earlier this year expire, unless there is an order to send more troops to replace them.
"The surge was and remains a temporary function," said General Casey. "I think we're on record here as saying the surge can be sustained through the spring without changes to the existing mobilization and deployment policies. And that's where we are. And we're going to wait and see here what happens, what our commanders on the ground recommend in the coming months."
The General also says that the United States needs the will to carry out a winning strategy, which could take years to implement. Again, the surge is a temporary fix to gain stability. With the new designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the military may now extend the cover for Iraq's fledgling government and place stern pressure on the out of control regime in Tehran.
It appears that the surge is working, and with perserverance, the war for the soul of Iraq could end with a victory for decency and democracy in the end.
3 Comments:
"with perseverance, the war for the soul of Iraq could end with a victory for decency and democracy in the end"
Wonderful flowery language, but I'm not sure what counts as decency. As I have predicted many times the BEST case scenario in Iraq is something similar to Lebanon. Is that decent? If your standards are low I guess an uneasy power sharing marred by mistrust and prone to breaking down often could be considered decent.
Secondly, why is it important that democracy win? I would argue that the rapid spread of democracy throughout the world since the fall of the Soviet Union has caused more instability which includes human rights atrocities such as genocide etc. Iraq will simply be another example.
Decency means respect for human rights. It doesn't take a state devoid of atrocities (consider America's own problems with violence), it only requires that a state acknowledge right and wrong and working to keep things right - imperfect though it may be.
"I would argue that the rapid spread of democracy throughout the world since the fall of the Soviet Union has caused more instability which includes human rights atrocities such as genocide etc. Iraq will simply be another example."
- We just simply cannot disagree more.
Rather than making the entire case here I will direct you to the best book on the subject that I know of "world on fire" by Amy Chua.
It is not a condemnation of democracy, instead it points out the pitfalls. It has gone terribly wrong in many places especially areas that have a history of colonialism such as Iraq.
Secondly, democracy is no guaranteer of human rights. In places such as Venezuela human rights have taken a step back through the electoral process.
Thirdly, i should clarify what I meant. Democracy itself has not caused the violence. The cause of the violence has been the unleashing of pent up resentment from majority racial groups that have been dominated by minority groups for many years. Democracy was simply the enabler.
My position isn't against democracy perse but is is against a universal policy of pushing democracy on other countries. It does not always help U.S. interests and can have unintended consequences.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home