Iraq Moves Closer To All-Out Chaos
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, War
One thing to keep in mind when looking at this chart and reading this story. This is a military assessment, not some bean pusher’s opinion.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 � A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.The conclusions the Central Command has drawn from these trends are not encouraging, according to a copy of the slide that was obtained by The New York Times. The slide shows Iraq as moving sharply away from “peace,� an ideal on the far left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the right side of the spectrum, a red zone marked “chaos.� As depicted in the command’s chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart.
An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads “urban areas experiencing ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaigns to consolidate control� and “violence at all-time high, spreading geographically.� According to a Central Command official, the index on civil strife has been a staple of internal command briefings for most of this year. The analysis was prepared by the command’s intelligence directorate, which is overseen by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.
My question lately has to be, again, “Is it worth staying?” Also, “Can we win?”
I know the Republicans like to say that we have to stay and win, but is that even possible now? We’re obviously not going to put more troops in there like myself and John McCain want to.
So if we’re not up for pouring more resources into Iraq, then why should we keep fighting a mission we’re destined to lose?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am
In the beginning, before thousands of Americans were dead, and tens of thousands were maimed for life, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and maimed ( most wanting no part of any side ), when someone questioned the wisdom of invading, the broken record response was “Would you rather have Saddam back in power?”
My response at that time was that the situation had not yet settled, and the time may well come when George Himself might wish so. We haven’t come to that time yet, and GW may yet go to his grave saying that we were the best thing to ever happen there, no matter the reality.
But while nobody favored Saddam (or any of the many vicious dictators in the region and not) getting rid of him may not have been a good thing for anyone except perhaps the Kurds. As many as he tortured and murdered , they have done worse to each other, quite aside from the blood on our own hands.
Worse as this BBC video points out our worst threat may be elsewhere.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I find it interesting that the Bush administration wants to focus on the words of a Senator on the campaign trail in California while virtually every intelligent observer believes that the “stay the course” effort in Iraq is putting our troops in harms way.
If the President is actually concerned for our troops, why doesn’t he admit his administration’s mistakes and focus his energy on crafting a new war strategy rather than a new political strategy…but that would require him to be less concerned with political power and more concerned with protecting our troops…troops he enjoys waving around like a cheap campaign sign when he thinks that will win him votes…the same troops that died in near record numbers in October in a war the President declared we had won more than two years ago.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
November 1st, 2006 at 10:33 pm
To FreeDem: As to whether I would rather have Saddam still in power, the question has to be framed properly. What would be the best way to spend half a trillion dollars and 3000 soldiers, (and 20,000+ maimed soldiers) in order to counter terrorist threats and protect the US and its allies from attacks? Attacking a seriously weakened country with no ability to project its army around the middle east, to say nothing of attacking the US would be very far down the list. With those kind of resources, we could do a lot more toward securing the homeland, feeding the hungry, preventing genocide in Darfur, actually getting Afganistan on its feet instead of letting it slide back into Taliban control…The list goes on and on. I know I could find a way to use those resources without alienating our allies and most of the Islamic countries in the world.
Beyond_Left
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:59 am
Meanwhile, Iraq’s going over the cliff
Given that Americans view the war in Iraq as the most important issue right now, an article in the NY Times today seems a bit more relevant than the Kerry debacle:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 â€â€? A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United State…