According to Obama's campaign website, he will immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq at a pace of one to two combat brigades per month, which means that all our combat troops would be out of Iraq, possibly, by late summer of 2010. He doesn't say a thing about what might result in Iraq from such a withdrawal, only that our, aside from security personnel for diplomats, will all be home. He does say that he'll send troops back to Iraq if there's evidence that Al Qaeda establishes any bases in Iraq. He goes on at length about working international, multi-lateral diplomatic angles through the UN, regional players, and neighboring states.
On a point-by-point bases, he and John McCain share the same Iraq policy when it comes to Iraq's most troublesome neighbors, Syria and Iran. Both candidates say that they will pressure those states, essentially, to behave. Given the records of both those government supporting terror abroad and in Iraq, and the long borders they share with Iraq, this is important. I wonder, however, at just how much Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will swoon over Obama's rhetoric. And if the United States assumes a position of weakness by pulling out of Iraq -- seemingly regardless of what is going on on the ground there -- how seriously could we expect those (nasty) leaders to take us and our strong words? That sounds a bit like the kid who, upon running halfway down the block, starts screaming, while still running, about how he's going to "kick your ass." How could U.S. diplomatic pressure have any meaning without being backed up with the threat of force? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but welcome to the real world, folks. And if America is halfway down the block, looking over it's left shoulder at "them," while trying to look tough, don't expect much.
And what's this garbage about "if" Al Qaeda establishes a presence in Iraq? THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. I'll leave that one at that -- it was a stupid, pandering comment that Obama makes, no doubt catering to those who are still stuck in the 2002-early 2003 debate of whether or not to go to war in the first place. I, for one, would like to live in today, and plan rationally for tomorrow, rather than rehash the debates of the past. We're there, so deal with it. It's easy to blow up a smokescreen of anger over the idea that the war was unjustified in the first place. Okay, fine, sure, whatever, that's nice -- how are you going to win it? I don't see Obama's plan as "winning" anything for America, or the world, but a power vacuum in the Middle East that will be readily filled by Iran and/or Syria at best.
For basic references, check Barack's site and McCain's site, and this one for perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sadly, I think that many Americans don't give a s**t what would happen to Iraq if we pull out. They are mostly just sick and tired of the war that they know little about. I read somewhere that news coverage on Iraq has dropped to 3% from 15% only a year ago. I really don't think most Americans even know that the goal of militant Islam is to subjugate to world (which includes the U.S.) to Shari'a law. "Shari'a what? Hey, change the channel... American Idol is on."
I think if we pull out quickly like Obama promises we leave the area like an open wound... succeptable to infection. The Sunnis and Shiites will likely duke it out to gain power, which will probably draw in Iran (backing the Shiites) and Saudi Arabi (backing the Sunnis). I don't think the U.S. would possibly sit on the sidelines, so back to the middle east our troops will go.
Post a Comment