Bush's Iraq options limited
By Paul Reynolds BBC News website
A warning by a senior Republican senator that "bold decisions" will be required on Iraq if progress is not made soon has prompted talk that the White House might be forced into policy changes after the mid-term elections in November. The problem for President George W Bush was illustrated by an example only this last week. The hope that US troops would be "stood down" as Iraqi troops "stand up" was turned upside down. It was an Iraqi police unit in Baghdad that was stood down, because of suspicions that it was condoning militia murders. If the US cannot rely on the Iraqis, then the policy of transferring responsibility has no prospect of success. And if there is no political solution, then the violence will continue. There are at least four wars going on Iraq - the war by jihadists against US troops, the war by nationalists against US troops, the war by Sunni jihadists against Shias and the war by Shia militias against Sunnis. Any action he takes to alleviate one area could impact on another. He is hardly likely to announce a withdrawal. He himself has said that Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror he declared after 9/11. Withdrawal therefore would be an admission of defeat in that war and might hand the country over to the jihadists, his absolutely worst nightmare. Talks with insurgents? He could send more troops. The US public would be doubtful to say the least and Congress might not fund them. He could threaten to withdraw some troops in the hope of shocking the Iraqi government do more against the Shia militias. But that might simply not work. And it could encourage the insurgents.
2006-10-07 18:13:56 · 11 answers · asked by zeca do trombone 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I thought of Viet Nam when our troops were first sent in. We are a foreign power trying to get one faction of a region to fight another. We would be better turning the occupation over to other regional Islamic nations. They all have more wealth than we do to restore some form of peace.
I am afraid that a major defeat of our troups will be the only way to get the American public to demand their removal.
2006-10-07 18:20:58 · answer #1 · answered by San Diego Art Nut 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No and yes. Vietnam fight was against communist north vietnam, supported by China and Russia.Vietnam, never attacked or tried to attack USA on her own soil like Osama attacked and destroyed twin tower. However, it was a mistake to go after Iraq leaving aside Al-quaida and taliban, but then history will say that it smacks of a personal family revenge where son taking revenge of the humiliation of the father, This was definitely not the case in Vietnam. Iraq and Afghan fights is propogated against Jihadis but here too they are supported by Pakistan and Musharraf who is helped by USA in the same way Saddam was helped by USA. Once he was a blue eyed boy for USA in the fight against Iran. During his recent visit to USA, Musharraf did everything to promote jihadi cause in the guise of a friend of USA. This design was never understood by anyone in the USA, surprizes us.
In any case, people from both the country never wanted foreign occupants and in that sense, this looks like same.
however, It would have been better if USA had concentrated on catching osama.
2006-10-08 01:39:47 · answer #2 · answered by Ashok Chavda 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you remember when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in 2003". That was an indication of the depth of his ignorance.
The US will eventually have to withdraw but Bush may tough it out till the end of his term so that somebody else will have to clean up the mess.
2006-10-08 02:26:10 · answer #3 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is already a longer version of Vietnam. Who knows how long it will contineu with Kissinger on board.
2006-10-08 01:25:05 · answer #4 · answered by GRANNY12GR1 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What I picture will happen is the troops coming home early if the dems win in November so that the liberals can spit on them as they exit the ships and planes.
2006-10-08 01:18:53 · answer #5 · answered by Huevos Rancheros 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Only the democrats and the Anti-war zealots have the same issues as Vietnam.
Vietnam was not a direct issue with the US as Iraq was.
All the propaganda you seem to be tossing out here seems weak...
ALSO, people who do not look at like thru the prism of success and winning will always see the possible failures
2006-10-08 01:17:21 · answer #6 · answered by lancelot682005 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
This will be another Vietnam. Those who support the Iraq war deserve it.
2006-10-08 01:51:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, especially since Henry Kissinger, the Vietnam warmonger, is advising Bush to "stay the course". It's complete suicide!
2006-10-08 01:34:39 · answer #8 · answered by Reba K 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is almost exactly like Viet Nam. The conflict is growing daily and we are outnumbered by terrorists. The people we say we are helping do not want us there. We need to declare victory (!) and leave.
2006-10-08 01:16:04 · answer #9 · answered by notyou311 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Same party, same families and leaders in government.... war is ALL the same.... it always ends the same way. No one wins but many lose.
The difference is that half of America believes we are still fighting terrorism....
2006-10-08 01:17:18 · answer #10 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋