|
Bush’s Iraq policy: from the frying pan into the fire
Here’s a disturbing angle on the Iraq situation. In response to Kerry’s announcement that he will significantly reduce U.S. force levels in Iraq and internationalize the security forces there within one year, NewsMax says that the Kerry plan “runs counter to the advice of most military and national security experts, who say it will be necessary to maintain a significant U.S. presence in Iraq for at least three years to keep the country from falling into the hands of al-Qaida.” When it’s put as bluntly as that, it’s really devastating. Prior to the war, Iraq was run by Saddam Hussein, who only potentially threatened us, through a potential terror alliance we feared he might form with our primary enemy Al Qaeda. But now that we’ve actually conquered Iraq and removed Hussein from power, we’re told that we must stay there for years and years or the country will be taken over by Al Qaeda itself. Doesn’t this suggest that we face a greater threat in Iraq now than we did before the war? Is this a victory in the war on terror? Is it even progress toward victory? Or are we getting ourselves more and more deeply immersed in an ever-worsening situation?
Bush has a policy of sorts, as inadequate and fraudulent as it is (fraudulent because he’s not seeking to defeat our enemies, as he claims, he’s just treading water), while Kerry has no policy at all except to pull out while talking about his own “strength.” Is this the best we can do? Are there no national leaders with a more comprehensive and realistic vision? Among all those national defense experts and well-funded strategic-studies think tanks in Washington, is there no better strategic thinking than this? Email entry |