Let the civil war begin! (oh wait, it already has). On a serious note, we need to be concerned by the fact that his guys have already, in some cases, integrated with the Iraqi security force and have duel loyalties. One can only wonder what will happen if we start cracking down.
However, failure to crack down means Sadr becomes a Shia Sadaam. A peaceful, democratic Iraq cannot have a man with his own army controlling large parts of the country. Yet another example of the difficult and complicated situation we are sending MORE US troops into.
Yet another example of the difficult and complicated situation we are sending MORE US troops into.
So you want to leave the troops we have without any backup?
I'm not convinced the surge is necessary, but that's a seriously weak argument against it.
To put it in Republican friendly terms, I just don't think you can solve a problem by "throwing more troops at it." Its like education and money...not always the answer (though in some cases, yes)...
If we're going to add troops, we need to add at least 100,000 to make an impact. I don't think we have it. Maybe we just need to use the troops we have in a smarter way. What is that way? If I knew that for sure, I wouldn't be breaking up fights in a middle school. I just don't see how 20,000 already scarce troops can help that much when things appear to just get worse. If Bush goes ahead, I hope I'm wrong. I fear, however, that they will just become 20,000 more targets for insurgents.
I hope you're wrong too, Mike. Rhetoric flag: "there's no military solution" has become as common as "I support the troops" but just as meaningless. What should be said is that theres no PURELY military solution, and that what's been lacking is the political part of the equation. Contrary to the popular image of our troops walking around waiting to be shot, the military is doing their job just fine. It's the politicians, both Iraqi and American, who are screwing things up, like not allowing al Sadr's bunch to be targeted.
Commenting by HaloScan
