A small number of Americans are displeased that the legislators in Iraq are still planning to take a two month recess (http://tinyurl.com/2haluc) while U.S. troops are "surging" in to quell the violence so that a political solution to the conflict can be reached. I don't see the big deal.
Per the White House "plan", a political solution cannot be reached until the violence is suppressed. Once the military secures the nation, then the politicians can do their job. So why fret over a two mouth recess between now and then?
Remember, the army extended tours (http://sumocat.blogspot.com/2007/04/pentagon-prepares-for-more-years-of-war.html) to 15 months in order to ensure 12 month breaks between tours, so they are planning to be there awhile. The President himself claimed success will take months (assuming he meant "dozens of months", I agree). So why fret over a two month recess, when even a two year recess would end before the surge sees results? Besides, with the Sunni legislators threatening to leave permanently (http://tinyurl.com/ysxjpj), the time-out might do them good. | 
|
4 Comments:
Why are we over there again?
By
Anonymous, at 5/10/2007 12:51:00 PM
We went there to topple a dangerous dictator. We are still there because, well, there wasn't much thought put into what would happen afterwards. Rumsfeld said it best, "six days, six weeks, my goodness, I doubt six months." Doesn't exactly demonstrate long-term thinking.
By
Sumocat, at 5/10/2007 01:58:00 PM
Would you consider Iran, Syria, North Korea dangerous dictators?
What did Iraq do to us, so we could send our troops over there to die on a daily basis?
Nobody can answer that question, because the answer is we live under a dictator.
By
Anonymous, at 5/10/2007 02:54:00 PM
Hey, I'm just stating the reason that was given. I'm not saying I agree it was enough to merit an invasion, let alone one as botched as this one.
By
Sumocat, at 5/10/2007 04:26:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home