• What are we supposed to use against them? Harsh language?

    In Washington D.C., Democratic party leaders are deep in discussion about Iraq.

    They want the troops out - and fast. But the way in which they're attempting to achieve that goal seems spectacularly cackhanded.

    In Congress, the Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over finance - specifically, the money needed by the army to continue the occupation of Iraq.

    While the U.S. Army has enough in it's bank account to tide it over until July, after that the generals will be calling on Congress to have their coffers refreshed. The Democrats believe stopping this funding is the most effective way to squash continued occupation plans.

    But is that true?

    It seems to me that cutting funding will hurt only one section of the U.S. Army's occupation force. The troops themselves.

    If the purse strings are tightened, the cuts will be felt most sharply on the front line. It's the soldiers themselves who'll struggle to effectively do their jobs - or just stay safe - when the resources they rely on are taken away from them.

    I can understand the Democrat's desire to end the occupation, but this approach benefits nobody. It's a gross betrayal of the men and women serving in Iraq - men and women who dodge bullets every day for the same wages as a waitress.

    Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is backing a far clearer plan. A repeal of the 2002 resolution authorising military activity in Iraq. If she manages to push that through, it will require President Bush to seek the approval of Congress in October to continue the occupation.

    If Bush can't pull that off, the troops would be required to leave Iraq - but at least they'd still have all the funding, equipment and support they require until that date.

    Read more about this issue here.


    I think there's a bigger problem here, however.

    Whether American troops are in Iraq rightly or wrongly, the country is in turmoil at the moment because of the actions of the US Government. If we yanked American and British troops out of the region, what would be left to fill the vacuum? Certainly not democracy.

    Most likely, another fundamentalist Muslim regime. Insurgents and terrorists are already hard at work causing instability and unrest. Without American support, could the fledgling democratic government of Iraq survive?

    It's doubtful - and if Darwin's theories are anything to go by, it'll be something tough, but ugly that ends up ruling the region. Can we afford to see another fundamentalist country pop up in the middle east, embittered and emboldened by America's inopportunely abandoned foreign policy?

    I think both Democrats and Republicans have to think very long and very hard about their role in Iraq. Pulling out with the job half done might be far more dangerous than making the investment to help a true democracy emerge in the middle east.

    But if that true democracy can be built - and that's a big if - it will be built on the bodies of young American soldiers. It's an impossible decision to make. Whether America decides to stay or go, the cost will be enormous.

1 comments:

  1. Tisha! says:
    9:33 AM

    You exactly right, at this point it's not a question of whether we should be there or not but rather how to "complete" the work that has been started and that will require strategic planning and collaboration. rather than berating each other dems and reps should bind together but with elections in view you can bet that won't happen and it will be the courageous soldiers and Iraqis who will pay the price.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)