Nice to see the Democrats solidifying around a strategy.
Destabilizing the region is almost funny, as there are most certainly Iranian and Syrian actors in the rogue militias and insurgent groups in Iraq. Both of these countries have seen destabilizing events, such as the Iran-Iraq war and the first Gulf War. I'd say that civil war in Iraq would be easier to contain since it would be internally focused and not related to external states. Turkey would be very concerned due to the Kurdish nationalist problems that they are having, but Iran and Syria would only benefit.
And what about those terrorists and non-Iraqi insurgents in Iraq? They are there to fight the US. Once the US leaves many of them will leave to other activities as well. This was seen in the USSR-Afghan conflict in the 1980's. No doubt some of them will stay for the civil war, but many of them don't see that internal strife as part of their jihad and would leave. This is what happened in Afghanistan when civil war broke out after the USSR left.
Obama is thinking about running for President? Maybe he should think again.
llinois Sen. Barack Obama, called this afternoon for troop withdrawal from Iraq starting next year and negotiations with Iran and Syria over the war-torn country's future.In a speech sure to draw political fire, the Democrat told attendees of a Chicago Council on Global Affairs event downtown that withdrawal should begin in the next four to six months and that those soldiers should be moved to Afghanistan to focus on terrorist groups again gaining strength in that country.
There you go. Afghanistan, in the hands of NATO is now considered the terrorist strong hold. Not that Iraq has far more terrorists or being far more unstable needs to maintain some US military presence. We should just all bug out and send all our troops to Afghanistan. Does this guy even read the news?
"We know these countries want us to fail and we should remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions," Obama said. "But neither Iran nor Syria want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees and violence as it could have a destabilizing effect on the entire region and within Iran and Syria themselves "Well, that pretty much proves his complete detachment from reality. In fact, Iran and Syria would prefer Iraq to fall into chaos. Firstly, it would be a huge win against the US in the international political environment. Secondly, it would open easy terms for them to assist the various sides in any open conflicts and increase their influence in the region.
Destabilizing the region is almost funny, as there are most certainly Iranian and Syrian actors in the rogue militias and insurgent groups in Iraq. Both of these countries have seen destabilizing events, such as the Iran-Iraq war and the first Gulf War. I'd say that civil war in Iraq would be easier to contain since it would be internally focused and not related to external states. Turkey would be very concerned due to the Kurdish nationalist problems that they are having, but Iran and Syria would only benefit.
And what about those terrorists and non-Iraqi insurgents in Iraq? They are there to fight the US. Once the US leaves many of them will leave to other activities as well. This was seen in the USSR-Afghan conflict in the 1980's. No doubt some of them will stay for the civil war, but many of them don't see that internal strife as part of their jihad and would leave. This is what happened in Afghanistan when civil war broke out after the USSR left.
Obama is thinking about running for President? Maybe he should think again.
No comments:
Post a Comment