Monday, January 08, 2007

Are more U.S. troops the answer in Iraq?

I try to steer clear of touchy political issues, but I can't leave this one alone. President Bush is about to unveil his new strategy for the war in Iraq. Most pundits believe that the plan will recommend that we initially send between ten and thirty thousand more troops to Iraq.

No amount of American lives will buy stability in Iraq. It is time to admit that we made a mistake by bringing down a stable, albeit extremist and totalitarian, government. Or, at the very least, admit that we cannot and should not attempt to quell hostilities between peoples who agree on nothing other than their universal desire for us to leave their country.

1 comment:

RaineS said...

I agree. If we had sent in a larger force initially, it might have made a difference. At this point, I think it just enlarges the problem, and will result in more dead on both sides. We should not have gone into Iraq in the first place; we have taken a fairly stable country (with a reprehensible leadership, but stable), and destroyed what little it had going for it. It will take decades, if ever, for Iraq to recover. Our troop presence does nothing to stabilize the situation, and nothing to help it recover.