Filling potholes on the Bridge to Kaboom
I agree with Fareed Zakaria:
At a military level, the strategy could well produce some successes. American forces have won every battle they have fought in Iraq. Having more troops and a new mission to secure whole neighborhoods is a good idea—better four years late than never. But the crucial question is, will military progress lead to political progress? That logic, at the heart of the president’s new strategy, strikes me as highly dubious.
I still believe the extra 21,500 troops are superfluous to the effort. Bush provides them to make it appear more intensive, but the real strategy is to push limited ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis, hoping to intimidate them into accepting a watered down political compromise on oil revenues.
By adding more troops plus Kurdish brigades to the Baghdad action, it’s hoped the Sunnis will see a united front working against them, that will obviously only worsen once US troops start withdrawing.
Not only will this backfire, but making US forces complicit in the cleansing will not only bolster Al Qaida’s cred, but it will not be well-received in the government halls of neighboring Sunni governments, potentially expanding the conflict beyond Iraq’s borders to the south (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), which will only be mitigated if we follow with aggression to the east and west (Iran and Syria).
Adding ethnic cleansing to the White House’s war crimes (which already hosted a Shia death squad leader)while building justification for a new war with Iran will clearly make any short-term military victories pale against the incitement of WWII.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Bush’s new strategy will involve few fresh troops…
WASHINGTON | The “surge” of U.S. forces in Iraq that President Bush announced Wednesday …