The Dispatch repeats itself
To the Editor,
In your “Last roll of the dice” editorial (below) you expressed the opinion that “the only way to go is forward” and that “those opposing the president’s buildup plan and those who favor a quick withdrawal also must consider and answer some questions.”
Well, before the war and before the Dispatch had stated either support or opposition to attacking Iraq, many of us urged the newspaper to oppose the action. You did not listen to us.
You supported it and, to some extent, enabled the President’s folly. You were wrong.
Now you are supporting sending more troops into this mess.
Perhaps the Dispatch editorial board should be asking themselves some questions: 1) Why should anyone trust their judgment this time, and 2) what are they enabling now?
Yours – Tom Harker, "Ukulele Man"
Last roll of the dice
President Bush is running out of time to salvage Iraq
Sunday, January 14, 2007
President Bush’s latest plan buys additional time for Iraq’s shaky government. What Iraq’s political and religious factions do with this opportunity will decide that nation’s future.
Bush’s "new approach," announced in a televised address Wednesday evening, commits 21,500 more U.S. troops and additional economic aid to Iraq and calls for a stronger effort by Iraqis to fight the Sunni-led insurgency and Shiite militias and to rebuild their nation.
It might work, although the odds seemed stacked against positive outcomes, as the sectarian conflict descends into civil war. Knowing that Iraq faces dire consequences if the U.S. abruptly ends its military intervention, Bush understandably took action to try to turn around this deteriorating situation.
The president is in a bind. If he withdraws forces immediately, as many Americans want him to do, the civil war will destabilize the region and could bring intervention by Iran, Turkey or Syria. If U.S. troops stay, he risks more Americans dying in a war that could turn out to be a disaster.
Bush’s plan would have had a better chance of success had it been imposed more than a year ago and had it been accompanied by the firing of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the prime architect of plan that sent too few troops to secure Iraq. Rumsfeld did not resign until after Election Day in November.
The buildup of U.S. troop strength, which stands at 132,000, and nearly $1.2 billion more in economic assistance will pay dividends only if Iraq’s leaders decide to make the compromises necessary to function as a civil society.
The United States, having led the invasion in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein, had a responsibility to provide Iraqis with the opportunity to rebuild their institutions and infrastructure. But Iraqis need to understand, as Bush said Wednesday, that this commitment is "not open-ended."
Iraqis in positions of power and influence have relied on U.S. forces to do the difficult work of pacifying the nation, a job that Iraq’s 325,000-member armed forces should be doing.
A principal reason for this failure is that Iraqi police and soldiers are more loyal to their tribes, sects or ethnic groups than they are to their government.
Concurrent with the U.S. buildup should be an exit strategy. Although Bush resolutely refuses to set a timetable for the troops’ withdrawal, he knows the clock is ticking on U.S. involvement.
This nation lacks the political will to keep slogging in Iraq if brave young Americans are simply babysitting a civil war. Everyone knows that an exit strategy needs to be in place by next year’s presidential elections.
A heavy U.S. presence, with no indication of major troop reductions, would be political dynamite next year, as the two major political parties battle for the White House and control of Congress.
But those opposing the president’s buildup plan and those who favor a quick withdrawal also must consider and answer some questions. What do they propose to do if a U.S. withdrawal results in a regional conflict involving Iran, Turkey or Syria? What if Iraq stabilizes under the rule of a Taliban-like regime that becomes a sponsor of al-Qaida? What if world oil supplies are threatened or interrupted?
Most Americans would like to turn back the clock and call off the invasion of Iraq.
But until someone figures out how to do that, the only way to go is forward, and every path seems fraught with peril.
In your “Last roll of the dice” editorial (below) you expressed the opinion that “the only way to go is forward” and that “those opposing the president’s buildup plan and those who favor a quick withdrawal also must consider and answer some questions.”
Well, before the war and before the Dispatch had stated either support or opposition to attacking Iraq, many of us urged the newspaper to oppose the action. You did not listen to us.
You supported it and, to some extent, enabled the President’s folly. You were wrong.
Now you are supporting sending more troops into this mess.
Perhaps the Dispatch editorial board should be asking themselves some questions: 1) Why should anyone trust their judgment this time, and 2) what are they enabling now?
Yours – Tom Harker, "Ukulele Man"
Last roll of the dice
President Bush is running out of time to salvage Iraq
Sunday, January 14, 2007
President Bush’s latest plan buys additional time for Iraq’s shaky government. What Iraq’s political and religious factions do with this opportunity will decide that nation’s future.
Bush’s "new approach," announced in a televised address Wednesday evening, commits 21,500 more U.S. troops and additional economic aid to Iraq and calls for a stronger effort by Iraqis to fight the Sunni-led insurgency and Shiite militias and to rebuild their nation.
It might work, although the odds seemed stacked against positive outcomes, as the sectarian conflict descends into civil war. Knowing that Iraq faces dire consequences if the U.S. abruptly ends its military intervention, Bush understandably took action to try to turn around this deteriorating situation.
The president is in a bind. If he withdraws forces immediately, as many Americans want him to do, the civil war will destabilize the region and could bring intervention by Iran, Turkey or Syria. If U.S. troops stay, he risks more Americans dying in a war that could turn out to be a disaster.
Bush’s plan would have had a better chance of success had it been imposed more than a year ago and had it been accompanied by the firing of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the prime architect of plan that sent too few troops to secure Iraq. Rumsfeld did not resign until after Election Day in November.
The buildup of U.S. troop strength, which stands at 132,000, and nearly $1.2 billion more in economic assistance will pay dividends only if Iraq’s leaders decide to make the compromises necessary to function as a civil society.
The United States, having led the invasion in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein, had a responsibility to provide Iraqis with the opportunity to rebuild their institutions and infrastructure. But Iraqis need to understand, as Bush said Wednesday, that this commitment is "not open-ended."
Iraqis in positions of power and influence have relied on U.S. forces to do the difficult work of pacifying the nation, a job that Iraq’s 325,000-member armed forces should be doing.
A principal reason for this failure is that Iraqi police and soldiers are more loyal to their tribes, sects or ethnic groups than they are to their government.
Concurrent with the U.S. buildup should be an exit strategy. Although Bush resolutely refuses to set a timetable for the troops’ withdrawal, he knows the clock is ticking on U.S. involvement.
This nation lacks the political will to keep slogging in Iraq if brave young Americans are simply babysitting a civil war. Everyone knows that an exit strategy needs to be in place by next year’s presidential elections.
A heavy U.S. presence, with no indication of major troop reductions, would be political dynamite next year, as the two major political parties battle for the White House and control of Congress.
But those opposing the president’s buildup plan and those who favor a quick withdrawal also must consider and answer some questions. What do they propose to do if a U.S. withdrawal results in a regional conflict involving Iran, Turkey or Syria? What if Iraq stabilizes under the rule of a Taliban-like regime that becomes a sponsor of al-Qaida? What if world oil supplies are threatened or interrupted?
Most Americans would like to turn back the clock and call off the invasion of Iraq.
But until someone figures out how to do that, the only way to go is forward, and every path seems fraught with peril.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home