This is "in the middle of a civil war"
This may be presented as "good news," but I don't see this as a positive development at all.
The situation the US will soon find itself in is that it will be expected to do "defensive duties" by both sides including being in the blame for every attack, while at the same time both sides will continue their offensives against each other. (Like today, when the Sunnis are requesting American protection while conducting a masive bombing, 25 dead, against the Shiites.)
US soldiers will be expected to guard targets and thus will become a part of those targets. The US cannot turnover defense to the militias or insurgents because those are the same forces they are supposed to be suppressing. And to top it off, efforts to get the militias off the streets simply frees them up for more offensive operations.
And as for turning security over to the "legitimate" Iraqi government forces, take a look at the operation conducted yesterday when an organized operation of "about 60 gunmen in masks and government-style camouflage uniforms" kidnapped the Iraqi olympic chief. Were they government forces or not? Does anybody even know anymore?
We are smack in the middle of a civil war with both sides asking for US protection while, at the same time, carrying out attacks on the other. What is the mission? Where do we tell our soldiers to point their guns?
As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces.
The situation the US will soon find itself in is that it will be expected to do "defensive duties" by both sides including being in the blame for every attack, while at the same time both sides will continue their offensives against each other. (Like today, when the Sunnis are requesting American protection while conducting a masive bombing, 25 dead, against the Shiites.)
US soldiers will be expected to guard targets and thus will become a part of those targets. The US cannot turnover defense to the militias or insurgents because those are the same forces they are supposed to be suppressing. And to top it off, efforts to get the militias off the streets simply frees them up for more offensive operations.
And as for turning security over to the "legitimate" Iraqi government forces, take a look at the operation conducted yesterday when an organized operation of "about 60 gunmen in masks and government-style camouflage uniforms" kidnapped the Iraqi olympic chief. Were they government forces or not? Does anybody even know anymore?
We are smack in the middle of a civil war with both sides asking for US protection while, at the same time, carrying out attacks on the other. What is the mission? Where do we tell our soldiers to point their guns?
posted by mikevotes at
9:07 PM
3 Comments:
It kind of reminds me of what it was like for British soldiers unlucky enough to be stuck in Belfast at the height of the Catholic/Protestant issue. It's a problem "peacekeepers" have faced since way back. You go in there thinking you're going to keep the peace between two rival factions and wind up becoming the target of both sides.
By
Anonymous, at 1:08 AM
The worse place we could be: picking sides in an Iraqi civil war. No matter how fair and even-handed our military acts, it'll be impossible not to be seen as supporting one side or another on any given day.
I can't see how Iraq becomes more stable by our presence. We seem to be dragging out the violence and instability.
By
-epm, at 9:50 AM
Yeah, Rachie, except the violence is sooo much more.
EPM, I don't know. The way I see it is it's chaos with the US and chaos without. If US forces were to vanish tomorrow, I think that the violence would seriously surge, but I think it would represent a compression of the violence that's going to take place anyhow.
The question that's tickling my mind right now is, if the US forces weren't there, Iraq would likely devolve into street fighting. Question: Would that lead to fewer civilian casualties as the forces began to directly fight each other?
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:31 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home