Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GAsux
Yeah. I liked it better when it was called "Vietnamization". Since that plan worked so well, I'm 110% sure that this will as well. IMO if you remove 50,000 by years end, it will only further imperil the 100,000 or so left, and increase the opportunity for insurgents.
|
You may be right, but what's the alternative? Do we keep all of our troops there indefinitely, or do we devise a plan for eventually giving the Iraqis some more autonomy?
I agree that they're not entirely ready for that autonomy, and I even think that we sort of need to stay there in order to win, not just build a new Iraq. The point is to defeat extremists, right?? The problem with that is that we have a leader who hasn't clearly defined how we're going to do that, thus leaving us in like a state of limbo.
I think plans are a good thing. This plan could be good. We need to have faith in Iraqi troops at some point, right?
Quote:
bin Laden and the Al Qaeda types are well versed. Not to say that the insurgency is entirely bin laden driven, but with success in Somalia and Spain, they've come to believe that even with limited resources, if they just keep slowly bleeding the life out of the U.S., they'll eventually grow tired and leave.
The jihadists did it to the Soviets in Afghanistan and they intend to do it again to the U.S. in Iraq.
I don't see there being any easy answer at this point. Stay and bleed to death or pull out concede the largest victory every awarded the jihadists. Pretty lose-lose if you ask me.
|
I think you've hit the unfortunate nail on the head here. But the one difference in those places is that we were withdrawing from anarchic situations, with no slight semblance of democracy. We truly were abandoning those places, not merely withdrawing.
I think with Iraq, if the constitution can hold, and the govt. can hold, and we remain tied to their security, Iraq may have a shot at curbing the extremism (not too unlike what the Pakistanis are managing to do right now).
Threaded Mode
