Letter to a Friend in Iraqi
I haven't gotten around to reading the Time article yet. So, I may be ignorant into what I have to say. But the idea of arming 'former' insurgents because they claim to be against Al-Quada is one of the worst ideas i have heard in this crazy war. (Let's ignore the obvious fact that they were fighting against the 'democratic' Iraq a few weeks ago.) It is on the same level on insanity as not bringing a large troop level in to capture Bin Laden during the first Afghanistan campaign.
When we first seem to have problems finding Bin Laden, I happen to be re-reading The Prince. (I was trying to impress a girl. Didn't work.) The one point that Micaville offers the prince that has stuck with me is his warnings against using mercenaries. Mercs are here just for the glory or gold and will be first ones to abandon you when the tide of the battle turns.
We know see former 'allies' in Afghanistan backing the Taliban again, because it's power is rising. How long do we think that these 'former' insurgents will remain on our side or on the Iraqi government side after we leave?
That being said, on Thursday, Bush held a press conference to speak about the 'surge', which just began. (Funny, I thought we agreed to a surge like six months ago. If the surge is just now starting it is not a surge but a slow drip.) He claimed success on Iraq was coming in the recent peace found in the Anwahr (sp?) province. He said that there Al-Quada had been driven out by the locals. This is true, the region is much more stable than months ago. However, it is not due to the fact that the people in the region love American Democracy. It happens to be that the Iraqi police no longer go in the area. Instead, the locals patrol their own area and have removed anyone they find as a threat to them: Al-Quada and the Iraqi government included. The region has been walking proof that the only way for a peaceful Iraq can be found in Sen. Brownback and Biden's proposal for three separate states sharing the oil revenue. Oh, well they will never be President. Instead, it is up between Giuliani who wants to attack Iran; Romney who wants to double the size of GitMo and Hillary who wants to prove she has balls and the toughness to stay in Iraq.
The other telling happening in the press conference was the first question Bush took was from Helen Thomas of the UPI. Thomas used to trade mental barbs with Kennedy so shaking Bush intellectually should be no problem. But she is also pissed off about the war, the way its been handled and Bush has only called on her once in his entire term, because she is seen as too liberal of reporter. Thomas took the bait. Instead of trying to question Bush and expose is failed logic, she went on an a-typical liberal rant about Iraq being a war of Bush's choosing and summed up with a question that was he aware that Al-Quada was not in Iraq until he invaded. Bush easily dodged the 'question' with statements about Saddam refusing to leave or have arms inspection.
This is the main problem with the liberal element in America, of which I am one. Anger at the administration clouds their minds, and their actions look silly and are ineffective. In the end, America will always choose the current course over raw anger. Look at Humphrey vs McCarthy, Reagan in 1984, Clinton vs. impeachment.