As I was saying yesterday... not one good exit strategy proposal has come out as yet from the government, military, defense department, or think tank. But a news journalist asked a man on the street in Iraq the other day what he thought should be done. Ibiza responded by saying that it is no good for the Americans to stay in Iraq and it is no good if the Americans decide to leave Iraq. Exactly! I couldn't have said it better. Thank you Ibiza for articulating the problem at hand so clearly and concisely.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
As I was saying yesterday... not one good exit strategy proposal has come out as yet from the government, military, defense department, or think tank. But a news journalist asked a man on the street in Iraq the other day what he thought should be done. Ibiza responded by saying that it is no good for the Americans to stay in Iraq and it is no good if the Americans decide to leave Iraq. Exactly! I couldn't have said it better. Thank you Ibiza for articulating the problem at hand so clearly and concisely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Estella.
I ran across your site just cruisin' around the internet on slow evening off; I am an US Army soldier in Afghanistan. I have to admit that as a soldier, we were suprised to see what looks like more funding for the war on terror, and no bug rush to get us out of Iraq.
Typically Democrats aren't the best friend of our military; they tend to support a smaller military, less funding, less research, less projects, and less leaders in the ranks. They do an OK job on salary, benefits, and entitlements, but they are overshadowed by the former. Rumor has it that the newly elected Democratic Congress has already pledged (or said they are going to) $75 billion in addition to the money already requested for continuing operations and the defense budget. That's pretty significant. And as you mention, it helps show that we aren't leaving anytime soon. Or at least maybe as soon as most Democrats (or supporters of that line of thought) would like.
But let's look at it from a different angle - my angle and that of others like me. Let me lead off by saying that I consider myself a conservative, but not a "Neocon". I am not the biggest fan of George Bush, and I am certainly not a Republican, nor have I registered as such for quite a long time. So hopefully my comments as 1) a soldier and 2) not a Republican get somewhat of a fair shot.
I am a little torn by the war in Iraq, as I think most Americans are, regardless of what side of the fence they are on. So far, the war here in Afghanistan has stayed out of the forefront of everyone’s minds and the media for whatever reason, probably because the reason we are here is/was more cut and dry and directly tied to September 11th. But the while there are a few minor differences that become somewhat significant, there are many similarities that become even more important. But the bottom line is this: we don’t have enough soldiers on the ground in either place.
Believe me – I want to get home to family as soon as possible, as does any soldier. And for however fast the average American (or Democrat) want us out of Iraq, imagine how fast each soldier wants to get out, and not have to go back a second time. And a third time. And a fourth time. I am serving with a few guys here in Afghanistan that are here on their FOURTH trip since 9/11, and that’s no lie. But consider this: could it be possible that more troops would get the job done better and faster than with less troops? Is it more expensive? Yes. Is it more inconvenient? Yes. Has Rumsfeld made some mistakes? Of course. Is it the Army and Marine Corps fault? No. Do we want more troops? Yes and no. Yes – let’s get the job done since we are spread too thin here. There aren’t enough of us to cover the ground we’ve already covered before. But no, because that means we will h ave to come more often until it’s done. But in then end, EVERYONE wants to see an end to the fighting, the deployments, the deaths, the expense, and the insurgency.
An insurgency is unique in that they already have a tactical advantage over the bigger government force: they don’t necessarily have to WIN, they have to simply NOT LOSE. There is a difference. We on the other hand, have to win, or we’ve lost. Like Vietnam (I don’t mean to get into the differences/similarities here, but…) for example: we didn’t lose, but we didn’t win, so in effect, we lost. And as all of us know, the American and European public are getting very tired and weary of the fighting in Iraq, and that is compounded by the fact that many people didn’t think we should go there in the first place. And the terrorists and insurgents know that. Even if they don’t kill another single American soldier, it’s not hard to make the folks back home lose interest. And that’s what terrorism is al about – it’s not necessarily about killing thousands of people; it’s about making you change your lifestyle, attitude, fears, interests, apathy towards…whatever and day to day business. And they are succeeding to a degree.
Take a look at this link to a recent speech from a retired Army general. It offers some good insight and honest criticism to Rummy, etc. And it shows why more troops were and are necessary to get the job done.
http://www.post-gazette.net/pg/06323/739338-109.stm
And as one who is on the ground directly facing this threat and risking my life every day: if we leave now or prematurely, the effects will be worse for Iraq, our country, and the world. If nothing else, look towards Iran as a good reason to stay.
Thanks for letting me have a few minutes on your site. Feel free to check my new site, if you have a minute or the desire.
My link didn't show up - sorry.
www.coa3.com
Post a Comment