Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon@Dec 2 2004, 12:48 AM
Hey all,
My comp monitor has been pretty screwed lately, and i'm not really able to search to see if you've talked about this yet.
Just saw in the NY Times that the US is increasing troop strength in Iraq by 12,000. Thoughts anyone?
Aren't troop levels supposed to go down if everything is more or less under control? Does this mean that the current force is inadequate, and has been the whole time? Is this the beginning of the 'long haul' in Iraq al Vietnam?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/01/politics...artner=homepage
|
American forces in Afghanistan went from 12,000 or so to 20,000 ahead of the Afghan election and have likely diminished in quantity in that country since then.
Having a firm election date is the same, in principle, as knowing the NHL season will be called off or a deal reached in late December.
It creates a defined pressure point both for those who want an election to happen and for those who want it to fail.
Both sides ramp up their efforts for that date, the Americans and the insurgents. Extra troops to provide security is a common sense measure, just as it was in Afghanistan.
In Vietnam, between 40 or 50 American soldiers were dying every DAY. The recent offensive in Falloujah aside, there's nothing comparable in Iraq.
The real lesson of Vietnam which could be translated to Iraq is that supporting endless puppet governments that lack the underlying support of the public is an inevitable defeat with the ignoble ending being a lone helicopter evacuating the last person from the top of a building.
If I thought fixing an election would be beneficial, I'd jump in with both feet. Very passe though these days, as you can see in Ukraine.
A public mandate, whether it favours the USA or not, is the wisest and most sensible course of action for the eventual diminishing of USA troop strength in Iraq. It would probably mark the beginning of the end for the ending of the insurgency as well, hence the violent focussing on Iraqi's themselves via intimidation and assassination.
It is, however, a legitimate debate as to whether or not this election will be "safe" or as "safe" as it was in Afghanistan where the insurgency clearly lacked public support to mount even a modest degree of violence.
Can the violence be suppressed sufficiently for this vote to be held fairly? I guess that's what we will find out.
Lastly, whatever happens in Iraq, win or lose, there won't be 150,000 American soldiers there four years from now. It will have been won or lost before then.
My interpretation.
EDIT: From the New York Times, the first acknowledgement of Canadian participation, amid other things:
"We have to be realistic - this is going to be an imperfect election," Senator Hagel said, while noting that even American elections are not perfect. "It's important not to strangle the process by holding it up to unrealistic expectations."
In Baghdad, Iraqi electoral officials said they expected the security situation to improve in the coming weeks and anticipated a nationwide voter turnout of at least 60 percent. They reaffirmed that they did not have the authority to delay the election, since the timetable is set in an interim constitution approved last spring.
Campaigning will begin on Dec. 15, five days after the final deadline for political groups to submit their lists of candidates, said Adel al-Lami, an organizer with the Iraqi electoral commission. In the meantime, the commission will be opening a center in Amman to train election workers. A meeting will take place in Canada on Dec. 7 to coordinate election monitoring with the Canadian election commission, Mr. Lami said.
It was an unusually calm day throughout Iraq, with no major violence reported by the American military.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/01/internat...html?oref=login
Cowperson