Ezra's points here are all well taken. But even if the "surge" is a failure on its own terms, it does seem to be coincident to a significant change in Iraq, and, as such, I suppose one should expect the "What's next?" to change. Specifically, if Matt Duss is right, and violence in Iraq is down as the logistical result of successful ethnic cleansing campaigns and waning Sunni-on-al Qaeda fighting--if, in short, Iraq is becoming Balkanized--wouldn't now, or soon, be the appropriate time to withdraw a significant number of American forces and replace at least some of them with a broad base of friendly ally troops? (HA!)
Alternatively, we could just keep 100-150,000 U.S. troops indefinitely stationed there on permanent bases, with less and less violence to police, but more and more long-term hostilities to inflame. Any bets on which course we'll choose? Anyone?

Comments
Of course our country's leaders will choose the latter. People are not comprehending the idea of a long term committment in Iraq, because Democrats and Republicans alike are in support of it. Dems want the public to believe they're going to pull the troops out, but behind closed doors they understand that controlling Iraq is a strategic plan in the war on countries with oil. Let's talk about the Trans-Afghani pipeline, let's talk about Iraq sitting on top the the world's second largest oil reserves, let's talk about the "super" bases currently being built in Iraq to house scores of American troops for a long term committment.
Violence in Iraq is down only because there is an increase in American troops. Pull those troops out and violence will gain ground again I assure you. Just today on Talk of the Nation several Iraqi's were interviewed about there experiences in Iraq. The most common response was that although violence is down, there is still a tremendous amount of it going on. Not only so, but the Iraqi's interviewed were very concerned that violence will rise once American troops pull out.
Post A Comment