As I mentioned in my last post, perhaps the reason why the president shies away when asked about a timetable in leaving Iraq is because al Qaeda and other terrorists in the region are really the ones who truly dictate whether our troops stay or leave.
So I wasn't quite surprised when I turned on CNN to hear that top al Qaeda officials have just released a new tape declaring victory over the United States over the administration's recent announcement of decreasing troop levels in Iraq. The timing of the announcement couldn't have been more poignant as it comes after a day of escalated violence that killed 127 Iraqis by the hands of a few zealous suicide bombers.
So what does this mean for the future of Iraq and how does this affect our political and military position in the region? An interesting observation is that there is always an increase of violence after major triumphs achieved by the Iraqi government and this is becoming more and more of a trend. As the Iraqi government takes one step forward, i.e. the creation of a provisional government, government official elections, and now constitutional elections, the insurgents seem to always step up their attacks a few days after the pronounced achievements, attempting to convince the world, especially the American public, that progress has actually taken two steps back. It's an excellent strategy from the viewpoint of the terrorists. It's similar to someone who builds a sand castle and then some stranger comes along to maliciously tear it down. Those who spent a lot of time and effort building it are completely demoralized. How much more can the administration tolerate this? Not surprisingly, there are two perspectives on this matter.
The recent announcement by both the Bush Administration and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw regarding the pull out of troops from Iraq could mean two very disparate things. The first, or the more optimistic view, is that the Iraqi government is becoming more self-sufficient and independent to take care of its political and security needs. In fact, Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, has made a recent announcement that the new Iraqi government will be formed in a matter of weeks. If this is the case and we have trained a sufficient number of Iraqi security forces, then this would be the right time to decrease our troop levels. The second and more cynical view is that the terrorists are actually winning by thwarting the successes of the new government, thus preventing stability, and is forcing the administration's hand in pulling out of the region.
Regardless of the two above reasons, the US military can expect more of the same: more violence and disruptions. While there maybe troop reductions, it's unreasonable to believe that the numbers will be significant; insurgents will surely mount more attacks prompting President Bush to not back down which means that more troops will stay. This begs the question whether our troops are really coming home? One thing is for sure, the majority won't be coming home in the near future, or at least, not in the coming weeks.
Even if we capture or kill al Zarqawi and other insurgent leaders, it's unreasonable to think that the insurgents will drop their weapons or decide not to blow themselves up. There will always be others waiting along the sidelines willing to take their place. The only time when these insurgencies will stop is when all foreign troops have left Iraq. Unfortunately, without our protection, the new fledging government we helped to build won't survive if we pull our troops out all together.
The mission right now, as the president has continually said, is to do the best we can in building a secure and free Iraq; that means building a stable and independent government. With the last election only managing to inflame more sectarian divisions, especially among the Sunni minority, it appears we're not even close to building a constitutional government based on federalism and the rule of law. This will take time for sure, but not a matter of weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment