Another jumps ship!

I am please to report that a key, and much respected, republican Senator has finally seen the light. Sen. John Warner of Virginia said today that:

"President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended"

The reason for Warner's change of heart, according to him, is that troop withdrawals are needed because Iraq has failed to make any meaningful progress, despite the influx of troops form the surge. He believes bringing troops home would send a message across the region, that the U.S. is not going to buy the Iraqi government time forever, when their own people are too involved in a civil war to care about the U.S's fate. There is one part of it, though, that I do strongly disagree with: when asked the number of troops he would withdraw, the senator said he would only take 5000 out of Iraq to begin with.

5000?!?!?!?! There are over 160,000 and he thinks 5000 is enough? We need all of our combat troops home, in a safe manner of course. I'm aware that it will be a long, drawn out process to get every last combat troop out of Iraq, but 5000 to start out with is too small a number to send a powerful message to the Iraqis. The top democrats running for president, specifically Hillary Clinton, who has detailed her ideas, have the right idea. Begin the safe withdrawal of all our combat troops. Leave a small force there who's only goal is to hunt and stop the advancement of al-Qaeda. That is the only security threat to the U.S. in Iraq, and the sad part is that even al-Qaeda is there because of the U.S. This B.S. from certain republicans about Iraq being crucial to U.S. homeland security is a complete myth. Al-Qaeda, the only people in Iraq who wish ill will to the U.S., account for under 10% of the violence in Iraq. I hate to come off sounding harsh, but we have given the Iraqis 4 years to fight amongst themselves and settle their differences, but they continue to fight, and they continue to kill and injure hundreds of Americans in the process. If we stop patrolling the streets, trying to control civil violence, there will no doubt be an increase in Iraqi bloodshed, but too bad. I'm just going to say it no matter how horrible it sounds: better them then us. I'd rather read the headline of 100 Iraqis killed in a massacre than one american killed because he had to act like Mr. Policemen between the Iraqis. I'm all for protecting the U.S., so lets fight al-Qaeda, but lets not lose American lives needlessly because the Iraqis themselves can't be get along. Let's protect U.S. interests, and leave Iraqi interests to their own government.

Is the surge really working?

This question has popped up in the media as of late, especially among conservative republican commentators who support this war. There has been talk of the surge making progress in such places as Anbar province. However lets get the facts straight-----there is indeed some improvement in some areas because of an increase in troops. In several reports I have heard from men who fought in Iraq, say that they(the troops) can spend 30 days stabilizing a town, but in 30 minutes after they pull out, its back to the the old chaos. It makes sense and I'm not denying that increasing troops in certain areas can lead to a reduce in violence. Its like putting a policemen on watch in a dangerous criminal neighborhood here in the U.S. There might be a reduce in crime while they're patrolling the area, but once they leave, the criminals come out again. This is the same thing that is happening in certain areas of Iraq. There is no long term solution in these areas and its ridiculous for us to put our brave men and women's lives at risk for progress to only last a half an hour once we leave.

Then there is a situation where we have local leaders turning against al-Qaeda. This is a great thing, I don't want al-Qaeda to become prevalent in Iraq, but the thing that so many seem to be missing, is that al-Qaeda is not be rejected by local, tribal leaders because of the surge, but rather because these tribal leaders do not share the same interests as al-Qaeda. This does not arise from an increase in the number of U.S. troops, but rather a realization that terrorists are not just bad for the U.S., but bad for them too.

And the final problem with the so called progress of the surge, is that while some areas show improvement, other areas are getting worse. I'll use another analogy: its like your kid getting a D in math, so you hire him a tutor. The next semester, his math grade is a B, but then you notice his English grade, which used to be an A, is now a C. You can't call that progress and you can't call the surge's results progress. We make 2 steps forward in one area, while at the same time making 2 steps back in another.

I would like to close by simply stating that there is NO military solution to the conflict in Iraq. There has to be a diplomatic, political solution. The Iraqi government, which is supposed to be a form of democracy, has to be the most un-cohesive government this world has ever seen. Maybe people should begin to understand something---we shouldn't invade countries for the hell of it, and the president shouldn't lie to the American people or Congress about the needs to go to war. Simply put it: A Democracy forced upon someone is not a Democracy. The people of Iraq need to want a democracy, and they clearly don't. Why should American troops have to suffer any longer while fighting in the middle of another country's civil war?