The insurgents, terrorists and militias operating in Iraq depend on foreign support for money, training, technology and in some cases men. Moreover the influence of foreign interference is clear even in the political arena in Iraq through the numerous political crises the country had faced.
Thus, this war will not see an end unless America revives the preemptive war strategy and start chasing the enemies and striking their bases in the region, especially in Syria and Iran.
We all saw how Saddam's regime collapsed in two weeks and we learned then how fragile and weak that regime and similar regimes are. And we discovered how ridiculous and futile the rage and warnings of the "Arab and Muslim street" were.
The same thing can happen to Syria or Iran; there's every reason to believe that regimes and armies will fall apart and surrender in the same manner that we saw in Iraq, and few will volunteer to stop Asad or Ahmedinejad from falling.
When this happens it will recharge the war on terror with great momentum and then Syria and Iran will no longer serve as training camps and recreation resorts for terrorists. The entire region from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean will be a dangerous place for terrorists just like Iraq and Afghanistan are and terrorists will have to keep running and hiding and will not be capable of launching organized campaigns from secure bases.
By expanding the war on terror to engulf these major terror hideouts, the huge military force will once again resume playing its logical role as a hunter not as a target trying to defend itself against incoming enemies.
Straight out of the neocon playbook. And we already know how incredibly short-sighted and wrong their so-called plans for success in the region were. And what the author completely ignores is the aftermath of such shock and awe campaigns. Surely, he can't be blind to that as it occurs all around him on a daily basis?
Surprisingly, some of the blog's longtime readers have taken Mohammed to task over his support of this plan with various commenters saying they want the Iraqis to step up and stop relying on the US military to fix all of Iraq's problems. That, of course, is the hard line now being pushed by members of the administration which Condi Rice personally delivered to al-Maliki this past week and which was then followed by Senate Armed Services Committee chair, Republican John Warner, to set a timetable of 90 days before the US should consider changing course in Iraq - a move seen by some as the precursor to a coup d'etat in the country.
All of this tough talking is occuring just before the US election in which the Republicans know that the Iraq war is being opposed by more Americans than ever and at a time when, despite having been in Afghanistan for 5 years and Iraq for 3, the US military is only now rewriting their counterinsurgency strategy. Too little, too late.
The fact that some 4,000 Iraqi police officers have been killed with an additional 8,000 being wounded in the past 2 years, along with reports that an average of 100 Iraqis are dying daily - the majority of whom have been tortured - and the massive instability caused by the
Who then, in their right mind, would even suggest that attacking Iran and/or Syria might actually bring peace to the region? In the middle of all of this lies Israel as well which made attempts to provoke a Syrian reaction during its war with Lebanon by inching its military as close as it could to Syria's borders, a violation of which would have set the region on fire. But, apparently, Mohammed at Iraq the Model and those who are like-minded think that more preemptive wars by the United States are actually a good idea in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Turning Iran and Syria into this is not a solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment