The U.S. in Iraq
The U.S. in Iraq
John Hillen (pro-Bush, pro-war):
American bases--even in relatively "safe areas," are vulnerable, especially given the extent to which everyday Iraqis get to come and go in and around them. I would think our commanders would do well to have even support troops in combat-like dispersements at almost all times and frequently change the plan. The episode sadly brings to mind how surprised US forces initially were when finding Vietnam Cong infiltrators to an American firebase with diagrams on their person that marked the position of every U.S. foxhole, supply dump, and command bunker right down to the meter. There is no safe rear area in this war. To paraphrase: there is no reliable way to tell friend from enemy. U.S. forces will be fine if they remain inside increasingly fortified barriers, and minimize contact with the local population--the ones who are supposed to be, er, liberated. If that's what a Bush defender says, what must the doom-and-gloom French-lovers be saying? John Derbyshire, also on the Corner, updates the old British Empire perspective: if there is some small power that might threaten us some day, and remains "barbarian" almost no matter what its form of government, then our best policy is to help push it into chaos, and keep it that way. But John: what if Iraq wasn't really any threat to the United States, or to Americans anywhere in the world? Isn't it a bit harsh to ignite or re-ignite a civil war that hurts and kills a lot of Iraqis, and then bug out? Kevin Drum says coalition forces will stay much as they are now in Iraq for a period somewhere between one year (Colin Powell's recent estimate) and ten to fifteen years. My old question: can the U.S. keep the oil flowing while withdrawing inside U.S.-only military bases, with more and more of a full-scale civil war raging around them? |
Comments
Add Comment
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting