Seventy-six more bodies found in Baghdad today, the largest number since the spring. It is obvious that Baghdad is the “Ground Zero” for sectarian violence—what happened to the civil war?
President Bush said today that be believes the U.S. “can win the war” in Iraq, if he didn’t think that we could win, he said, our troops would not be over there. He is calling for a permanent increase in the size of both the Army and the Marine Corps, asking three-day-old Secretary of Defense to “get back to him” on how to go about that. He is also suggesting a temporary surge of troops to Baghdad. However, the military isn’t trained to handle the violence or the policing necessary in the Iraqi capital, and many are saying it would result in more U.S. casualties.
Shi’ite leaders, the Prime Minister of Iraq included, are saying the Iraqi police forces should be enough, and trained well, to take control of the city, essentially taking this “Ground Zero of violence” out of U.S. hands. However, Sunni leaders, including the Vice President, are saying the Iraqi police forces cannot be trusted and more U.S. troops are needed to keep control of the growing violence.
The Iraqi forces, trained by U.S. soldiers, are mostly Shi’ite; and the Sunni population in and outside of Baghdad is increasing nervous of their ability to hold the city. The distrust between the two sects is ever growing, and insurgent violence is on the rise.
The new Secretary of Defense arrived in Baghdad on his third day in office today, essentially looking into whether the city needs a surge of troops, or if a withdrawal can begin. Back in Washington, the Democrats, who will shortly be taking over Congress, are conflicted on a time table to begin troop withdrawal. More and more, the Bush administration seems to be shifting toward supplying Iraq with a greater number of U.S. forces. But, at this point, all the American public is being promised is a new strategy come this January.
Now, what do I think? Well, I couldn't possibly tell you.
President Bush said today that be believes the U.S. “can win the war” in Iraq, if he didn’t think that we could win, he said, our troops would not be over there. He is calling for a permanent increase in the size of both the Army and the Marine Corps, asking three-day-old Secretary of Defense to “get back to him” on how to go about that. He is also suggesting a temporary surge of troops to Baghdad. However, the military isn’t trained to handle the violence or the policing necessary in the Iraqi capital, and many are saying it would result in more U.S. casualties.
Shi’ite leaders, the Prime Minister of Iraq included, are saying the Iraqi police forces should be enough, and trained well, to take control of the city, essentially taking this “Ground Zero of violence” out of U.S. hands. However, Sunni leaders, including the Vice President, are saying the Iraqi police forces cannot be trusted and more U.S. troops are needed to keep control of the growing violence.
The Iraqi forces, trained by U.S. soldiers, are mostly Shi’ite; and the Sunni population in and outside of Baghdad is increasing nervous of their ability to hold the city. The distrust between the two sects is ever growing, and insurgent violence is on the rise.
The new Secretary of Defense arrived in Baghdad on his third day in office today, essentially looking into whether the city needs a surge of troops, or if a withdrawal can begin. Back in Washington, the Democrats, who will shortly be taking over Congress, are conflicted on a time table to begin troop withdrawal. More and more, the Bush administration seems to be shifting toward supplying Iraq with a greater number of U.S. forces. But, at this point, all the American public is being promised is a new strategy come this January.
Now, what do I think? Well, I couldn't possibly tell you.
I haven't had the chance to do more than skim the ISG Report--apparently Rummy and myself are on the same page--and it is currently in transit from Chicago to Oklahoma. However, this shouldn't stop me from having an opinion.
I think I am ready for this war to be over. Which, knowing me, is almost strange.
When I was little, learning about WWII and Vietnam, I always thought it would be interesting to grow up while the country was at war. Of course, I never actually thought it would happen. And, when it did, it wasn't at all what I had thought it would be. There is a lack in the patriotism found in WWII, and we're missing the element of Vietnam that was truly entertaining--the hippies. No, quite instead, this war is super crappy. I never expected it to turn sour, but, then again, when it began nearly four years ago, I was a freshman in high school, still certain I believed what my parents did, still unsure of exactly why we were going to war. At the time, being as naive as I was, I thought it was all related to September 11, but, I was wrong.
I fear I have missed something, somewhere in my development, because of the divorce coming right when I would have otherwise been enthralled with the news. However, personal problems distracted me from my growing love of CNN, international politics, and the Middle East...and that love didn't awaken until early 2005. I literally lost two years of the war, and analyzing it as I developed my political and social ideologies, and for that I am sad. I think, maybe, if I had been cognizant of such things, instead of so concretely concentrated on the state of my mother, I would have gotten more out of the war as a political correspondent. But, I can't say that parts of it didn't reach me. Thanks to an overzealous Democratic government and Civil War teacher--and football/basketball coach--parts of the war, and his increasing disdain, did reach my ears. But, unfortunately, my brain couldn't comprehend. And now, when I can, and when all I really want to do is study the politics of conflict and war in the region of Southwest Asia, more and more I am tired of Iraq. More and more I am tired of seeing death counts, names of soldiers lost to IEDs; I am tired of crying every time I sit down to watch This Week in War, which--despite it's anchor, icky John Roberts--should be my favorite show CNN has to offer. I am tired of this war, and I fear, if they do decide to elevate the troop count once more, I will lose someone close to me. Someone who's name I recognize, and whose face I know, will be part of a slide-show of soldiers lost to another roadside bomb. If that is ever the case, I know I will be part of the masses, part of the growing mob, that is calling for this war to end, and for our soldiers to come home.
But for now, I am still fascinated by the idea of living in a country at war, and part of me likes to know that there will always be something in the paper for me to be interested in. But, for the rest of me, I think it's time we give this war a rest. After all, the war we went to fight is the war we have abandoned. Maybe it is time we start concentrating on our first objective. Maybe it is time we remember Afghanistan. Maybe it is time to leave Iraq to itself, and if civil war ensues...maybe it was meant to be.
If to Sleep is to Dream....
9 comments:
I completely agree with you Rachie. While I was never compeltely for war, I like you, have often wondered what war was like, and enjoyed to look at WWII, and Vietnam. But, we as new-aged Americans are beginning to learn that War isn't always glorified until later. I, personally, think that putting more troops in isn't the answer. Bush said this morning that pulling out would make the US seem weak --but would we rather loose more men and women in Iraq, or loose some respect? I would choose the respect, because if we're being respected for the number of people we're losing every day in a war with so many different 'reasons' behind it, some of which don't even apply to the every day American --Americans who are fighting their own battles on the home front with poverty, homelessness, gay marriage, etc... I got on a tirad and lost my spot...damn it. In short, the war should have been over a long time ago.
Hahaha, oh Samma, silly tirads.
At this point, looking back at the war in the years I missed, I see no legitimate reason for war in Iraq, and I am moderately miffed that we have so easily ignored the war in Afghanistan. But, I think if I had been more in tune with the war those two years, I would, as of this moment, be calling for immediate withdrawal. But, I can't say that I am, just because I feel like I missed something, and somehow I want it made-up.
I don't know if that is morally wrong or not....
I think what needs to happen is everyone needs to stop using the word WIN and just fix Iraq so they can sustane there own government.
Yeah...but, I think in Mr. Bush's eyes, that IS winning.
that made for very interesting reading. what interested me most was your talk of "living in a country at war". Iraq, like Vietnam [and, to at least some extent, the Second World War], is a long way from the US, so you are still without first hand experience of war. i doubt the thought of living in a country in which a war was actually taking place would appeal to anyone - i know i am glad to have avoided it. however, many people over here look back on the Second World War with fond nostalgia, so i often wonder if i would do the same if i had to live through it as well.
pleasantly thought provoking.
I think living in a war-torn country would be even more interesting, though more dangerous. We, as Americans, would have to stand up and face the fact that we aren't invincible. And in no way am I encouraging a war to spread over to our country...I'm just saying...it would be interesting.
I agree.
Good commetary. I think Afghanistan is truly being shoved aside for Iraq, and I still think of Afghanistan as Ground Zero. But, I know how important it is to stabilize the Iraqi governemnt. However, when do the powers-that-be come to realize it might be time to call it a draw? Too many people are dying needlessly, and for what? A situation that may never be more stable than it is today? Or, only temporarily stabilized? Imagine if we'd get the Iraqi government to where *we*, as Hegemon, think it should be, and in, oh, two years, it blows up again? How long can we keep sending our man/womanpower over there to bail them out? Recuitment is down already, the war is unpopular, and if we pulled out, brought the troops home, only to have to send them back....I think there would be a revolt!
Thank you.
I really wish we would put more focus on Afghanistan. Jon said the other night to his guest that we have stopped caring, and he mentioned our pulling troops from Afghanistan. The guest yelled at him and said that wasn't true, that we have added more. Where is the evidence of that? I would really love to see it.
I know we added a NATO force, but the troop count was basically the same as before, just considered NATO. If I am wrong on this, someone correct me. As far as I have heard, NATO has technically increased the number of troops to their forces, but that was by adding an American battalion, that, by the way, was still under strict control of the U.S. commander and still doing U.S. deeds. That isn't adding more, that is just chaning the name. but again, if I am wrong....
Anyway, we need to focus on the real reason we went to the Middle East, and that was Afghanistan. It's time to start looking a little farther east again.
Post a Comment