02 December 2005
Troop Levels vs. Insurgency Level
Condoleeza Rice predicted last week on Fox News that the current level of American troops would not have to be maintained “for very much longer” because the Iraqis were getting better at fighting the insurgency. It may be cynical to say so, but it seems likely that the insurgency will weaken of its own accord when the U.S. pulls out.
Of course: in that eventuality the indigenous government will have an easier time of policing civil order in Iraq. That is what might have happened anyway if the U.S. had not engaged in an extended occupation Iraq following the accomplishment of its original mission -- the overthrow of Saddam. He had been keeping the peace in his country by admittedly repressive means before “shock and awe.” Now that he has been removed, the Iraqis will apparently not be given the chance to create their own civil society until two things happen:
1) It can be claimed that military action was successful in establishing orderly rule of law in a state once ruled by an uncooperative dictator.
2) The American people realize that holding our soldiers in Iraq only makes them victims of an irrepressible resistance, and insist on withdrawing them.
Congressman Murtha, a combat veteran, realizes that military force can’t impose democratic rule. That is something that must be developed by each society on its own. If the U.S. tries to achieve that through occupation, we will be in Iraq for a long time, at a truly tragic cost to our soldiers and their collaborators in Iraq.
Condoleeza Rice predicted last week on Fox News that the current level of American troops would not have to be maintained “for very much longer” because the Iraqis were getting better at fighting the insurgency. It may be cynical to say so, but it seems likely that the insurgency will weaken of its own accord when the U.S. pulls out.
Of course: in that eventuality the indigenous government will have an easier time of policing civil order in Iraq. That is what might have happened anyway if the U.S. had not engaged in an extended occupation Iraq following the accomplishment of its original mission -- the overthrow of Saddam. He had been keeping the peace in his country by admittedly repressive means before “shock and awe.” Now that he has been removed, the Iraqis will apparently not be given the chance to create their own civil society until two things happen:
1) It can be claimed that military action was successful in establishing orderly rule of law in a state once ruled by an uncooperative dictator.
2) The American people realize that holding our soldiers in Iraq only makes them victims of an irrepressible resistance, and insist on withdrawing them.
Congressman Murtha, a combat veteran, realizes that military force can’t impose democratic rule. That is something that must be developed by each society on its own. If the U.S. tries to achieve that through occupation, we will be in Iraq for a long time, at a truly tragic cost to our soldiers and their collaborators in Iraq.
Comments:
Post a Comment
