U.S. troops not the answer in Iraq
Trying to follow the turmoil in Iraq can be a bit like reading a Dostoevsky novel for the first time. The intricate plot can be confusing, you need a score card to keep the characters straight, but there’s plenty of far-reaching drama.
Make no mistake, there’s drama aplenty in Iraq now, and it is so far-reaching that it may affect us all.
The nation invaded by a U.S.-led coalition, torn apart by the ensuing war and struggling to rebuild since then is once again in disarray, and that isn’t good for anyone except arms dealers.
Insurgent forces known as ISIS, or Islamic State of Iraq al-Sham, systematically have taken stretches of territory controlled by the Iraqi government. ISIS militias have taken Mosul, the nation’s second-largest city, and are moving toward Baghdad against alarmingly impotent resistance.
The forces captured a huge oil refinery in northern Iraq on Wednesday and gained control of what used to be a chemical weapons facility the next day.
These guys are not your garden-variety zealots. They are so radical that even al-Qaida, from whence they arose, considers them extreme. Enough said.
Matters are so strange that there was talk about the U.S. teaming with Iran to help drive ISIS out. It’s a bad idea, but it demonstrates the moment’s seriousness.
Information is conflicting, muddled or tainted. But we are certain on a few things.
First is the obvious: Iraq is a mess. It has been since before we invaded in 2003. It’s possible that the huge divides between Shiites, Sunni and Kurds is so deep that modern Iraq is ungovernable.
Second, ISIS sees what most of us classify as terrorism as merely a means to an end. An Iraq ruled by this faction would be even more of a disaster than the current feckless government has created.
Third, partisan bickering in this country helps not at all. It is irresponsible to treat this complex circumstance as if it can be resolved with pat, bumper-sticker solutions.
Fourth, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s actions favoring his Shiite brethren are at least partly responsible for ISIS’ rise. The Obama administration has made it clear Maliki should leave. But on Thursday, Obama committed to sending military advisers and hinted the U.S. might employ air strikes, if needed.
One thing we can conclude today is that sending U.S. ground troops back into Iraq is no answer.
The war that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney promised Americans would be as brief as it would be victorious has instead cost this nation much blood and treasure with paltry results.
Americans don’t have the stomach or political resolve to support another ground war.
It would only bring American families further heartache without offering a realistic chance of success.
— From the San Jose Mercury News
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.