started to uncover and fight that role in Iraq.Do you think the US made its optimum use of Iranian in the secterian fighting and it was the time to declare and fight this role?or it is just a tactic of the new Bush,s strategy?
2007-01-19 18:05:17 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I posted a question earlier asking why the borders weren't secured from insurgents after we took out the government ...what...2 years ago.
I received an answer from a US soldier in Iraq and he answered it never was a mission of the US military to do so. If it were even addressed at all it was to the Iraqi security officials to provide their own border patrol.
I thanked him for his response and asked respectively why? No response.
Because there is NO border security we have had at least 2 years worth of Shia and Sunni insurgents. Shiites premarily dominating the insurgency from Iran. I don't think this is a sectarian problem per say as far as Iran is concerned. I think they are hoping we will pull out of Iraq and leave it in a weakened state ripe for invasion on Iran's behalf.
We the United States cannot afford to leave Iraq to ineffectively defend itself against future invaders. Or we will be back there soon!
I personally don't think Bush is swift enough to spin insurgency to his political advantage. I don't think he is tactical.
My biggest question is why was the insurgency situation not delt with sooner by the Generals in the fight? Or doesn't Bush listen to his men on the ground?
Ultimately, not securing the borders WILL in my opinion be the biggest blunder in Iraq.
2007-01-19 18:30:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iran has been in the administration's sights for quite a while.
The rhetoric and provocation has to be stepped up now to ensure that the war in Iran can be started before the president is replaced.
Too few troops to send into Iran -we will need another option for retaliation for Iran's provoked response.
The last time we wanted to subdue a country without sending troop one onto it's soil, how did we do that?
2007-01-20 02:37:38 · answer #2 · answered by Jack C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The USA policy in the Middle East due to the Israeli lobby can not serve the USA national interests. On one hand, the USA want to build democracy in Iraq. Yet any free election will bring the political parties that are loyal to Iran. Iran is Israel number one enemy and there you have it.The Israeli lobby interests or USA national interests. Both political parties in the USA dance around the Issue both want to please the Israeli lobby at end more than pleasing the American interests.The Middle East will never be peaceful without ending the Israeli occupation.
2007-01-20 03:46:49 · answer #3 · answered by DAVAY 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US was trying to let the "new" Iraqi government govern but, as you can see, it's easier to slam the US that act like the US. We are in a corner, if we pull out millions will be killed in a "holy shi*" war, if we stay all the true Americans in our government will be left at the alter come "08". To bad we have lost the balls we had in the 40's.
2007-01-20 03:06:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They've been reporting and denouncing Iranian involvement for a couple years. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here..
2007-01-20 02:08:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋