Pullout in Iraq
The pullout of US troops from Iraq would not be a defeat or the end of American involvement in Iraq.
The removal of the vast majority of American combat forces would simply be a change of strategy in Iraq not a defeat. The present strategy of deploying large numbers of American ground forces isn't working so it should be ended.
The pretext for deploying these forces in Iraq is to stop violence and that obviously isn't happening. So there is simply no reason for the vast majority of American troops to be in Iraq.
Acknowledging that a strategy has failed and switching to a new strategy isn't defeat, it is the first step on the road to victory.
The pullout of most of our troops wouldn't end the American involvement in Iraq. After most of our forces leave we'll still be active there, training and supplying the Iraqi Army. Our special forces and heavy infantry will probably still be in country battling Al Qaeda. Fighting Al Qaeda would only take small forces backed by air power.
Perhaps the training and equipping of Iraqi forces and even some of the fighting could be done by private military contractors. They would certainly be cheaper and perhaps more effective than US forces.
Iraq isn't Vietnam, there is no outside force waiting in the wings to take control of the country if we pull. Pulling out of Iraq wouldn't be a set back in a global conflict the way Vietnam was, Vietnam was a Cold War conflict, a defeat there was a victory for Communism.
American pullout from Iraq wouldn't be a victory for Islamic terrorism, nor would it be a defeat. We would still be in an excellent position to wipe out any attempt to organize an Islamic Republic of Iraq or a terrorist state there.
The war on Terror in Iraq would continue but it would be Iraqi forces trained and equipped by the US that would do the fighting. Without the involvement of American troops there would be little media attention and the Iraqis and private contractors would be free to actually fight and win the war.
There is historical pretext for this, during the Cold War we lost in Vietnam where Lyndon Johnson deployed US troops to fight Communism. We won in Central America and Afghanistan where Ronald Reagan refused to deploy US troops but relied on local forces to do the fighting.
There is a lesson here, unfortunately one neither the left or the media gets. Perhaps by harping on about Vietnam the opponents of the Iraq are prolonging it by making a pullout from that troubled land seem like a terrible defeat rather than a simple change in strategy.
The removal of the vast majority of American combat forces would simply be a change of strategy in Iraq not a defeat. The present strategy of deploying large numbers of American ground forces isn't working so it should be ended.
The pretext for deploying these forces in Iraq is to stop violence and that obviously isn't happening. So there is simply no reason for the vast majority of American troops to be in Iraq.
Acknowledging that a strategy has failed and switching to a new strategy isn't defeat, it is the first step on the road to victory.
The pullout of most of our troops wouldn't end the American involvement in Iraq. After most of our forces leave we'll still be active there, training and supplying the Iraqi Army. Our special forces and heavy infantry will probably still be in country battling Al Qaeda. Fighting Al Qaeda would only take small forces backed by air power.
Perhaps the training and equipping of Iraqi forces and even some of the fighting could be done by private military contractors. They would certainly be cheaper and perhaps more effective than US forces.
Iraq isn't Vietnam, there is no outside force waiting in the wings to take control of the country if we pull. Pulling out of Iraq wouldn't be a set back in a global conflict the way Vietnam was, Vietnam was a Cold War conflict, a defeat there was a victory for Communism.
American pullout from Iraq wouldn't be a victory for Islamic terrorism, nor would it be a defeat. We would still be in an excellent position to wipe out any attempt to organize an Islamic Republic of Iraq or a terrorist state there.
The war on Terror in Iraq would continue but it would be Iraqi forces trained and equipped by the US that would do the fighting. Without the involvement of American troops there would be little media attention and the Iraqis and private contractors would be free to actually fight and win the war.
There is historical pretext for this, during the Cold War we lost in Vietnam where Lyndon Johnson deployed US troops to fight Communism. We won in Central America and Afghanistan where Ronald Reagan refused to deploy US troops but relied on local forces to do the fighting.
There is a lesson here, unfortunately one neither the left or the media gets. Perhaps by harping on about Vietnam the opponents of the Iraq are prolonging it by making a pullout from that troubled land seem like a terrible defeat rather than a simple change in strategy.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home