Image : http://www.flickr.com
It seems that President Bush is accustomed to a "temporary" preach the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. The President is more complicated, a series of bad decisions from the beginning of the invasion. Problem is difficult to imagine how an increase of U.S. forces is a self-created to solve?
We made the same mistake that the five-star General Douglas MacArthur warned against Asia, "has never been involved in a land war in Asia". PresidentKennedy and Johnson did not listen to the Council, and the rest is history. Even today we have a president who has a willing partner (the United States has never attacked directly or indirectly, against the evil of Saddam Hussein) in a war in an Arab country, where suicide bombers are as common as a cup of coffee.
The basis for the opinion of General MacArthur was that life is cheap in Asia. Our country is tired, and the public will continue the efforts of 'opposition, even before it disappears TiresLosing your life. The same advice applies to the Middle East and Asia. Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the mullahs of Iran has lost hundreds of thousands of people in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and no one felt the loss. The United States has openly supported Saddam Hussein during the war, and prevented an Iranian victory in his arms and intelligence.
Our President, on the other side is still very badly advised by the same people who receive the effort of this initiative. Let'sTo understand the aspect of the story of what happens. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, like all other tyrants elsewhere in this section. Goggle "massacre of Hama, and see how the Syrian leadership, tens of thousands of its citizens killed in 1982. When was supported by the mullahs of Iran and the shah was probably hundreds of thousands of people died later.
The history of the region is that of violence, instability, lawlessness and insecurity. In this simple sentenceunderstand why our president wanted a democracy in Iraq can not work for the installation. All countries of the Middle East, has taken a decision unstable regime of a society whose members have little tolerance for others and are inherently unstable. Even if our President, our democratic principles forces the Iraqi people, the whole system would collapse in a few months to a year or two, could not be accepted as a new equilibrium is formed between the parties in conflict.
Thisis not the fault of George Bush. He simply lost the reality of day to day situation in Iraq. His advisers have failed miserably, and has not changed in the United States, his aides quickly enough to understand what this has to do with the failure.
The primary objective of any United States President and Congress should not be given to our country, what should be our interests. Then the president should be the policy of promoting our interests. It is no accidentthat the first invasion of Iraq in 1990 took place shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. Our policy in the Middle East until the time was to prevent the Soviet invasion and domination of the oil-rich Middle East.
E 'was the fall of the Soviet Union, our policy, a country in the region by establishing hegemony over the region (the reason is to avoid the oil) s. This was the sin of Saddam. Examination of the oil wealth of the region to invade Kuwait, and therefore controlNeutralization of Saudi Arabia. This must be avoided at all costs. In 1990, the cost of a coalition under the command of the United States to Saddam Hussein as a threat to the stability of oil in the region deleted, and then the first President Bush was never transferred to Baghdad. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was sufficient to ensure that hegemony is not created.
Somehow, the current President Bush took his mind, Saddam remains a threat to stability in the region, and then fell again. Itopened the Pandora's box. Once you open the box, nobody can predict with certainty how to read. We have a number of things, none of them are in our favor:
1) We have strengthened and encouraged Iran. We are not in a position to threaten Iran with the invasion to continue its nuclear program. We do not have the force structure to ensure that our threats.
2) We have strengthened Iran Syria the same way.
3) We have the difficultIsraeli-Arab, weakening the image of himself as honest to third parties in the conflict.
4) A destabilized Iraq as a nation and as a functioning state, with no end in mind.
5) We must put our prestige on the line, and are at their lowest level over the eyes of our allies after the Second World War.
6) Our position as a moral force of this planet is in peril.
7) We have a war, we know from beginning to end.
What should be the presidentNow, you can not see where we are. Therefore, it is the Congress of the last elections. Americans should not stay in place, or inactivity. We are a nation on. If the President is not fast enough, other people choose to whom?
Our soldiers should not be used to train the Iraqi military, police and soldiers as well as combatants in a country whose government is already acting, we conquered. If the president believes it is imperative to use more troops, againThese additional forces should be used only to intercept the train Iraqi forces. This is not a civil war that has pitted Muslims against Muslims, with the cons and the religious sect. Not against the Catholics against Protestant, Jew or Arab. It 'a place in the same religion. And 'even within the same sect. Are killing Sunnis and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis. Might be expected to take action against these ruthless killings.
We did aDemocracy, the beacon of the world where there is very dark. Our continuous efforts in Iraq to that country, which could potentially cause the nuclear program of Iran, which undermines the creation of regional hegemony, we are trying to prevent Iraq from building. Is not a sad state of affairs? We replace a monster to another.
Goodbye and good luck
No comments:
Post a Comment