Wednesday, October 05, 2005
‘Center for American Progress’ released the Iraqi Exit Plan
The Iraq exit plan released by ‘Center for American Progress’ simply stinks. The basic aim can be summarized as follows:
Remove ground troop thus saving precious lives of American military personnel.
Keep US interests intact by keeping a small contingent to protect the US interests (read oil installations, Offices of US companies, embassy etc.) protected.
Use only air strike from Kuwait or other nearby military bases to destroy any militant hideout or base (Take a leaf from Israeli experience)
Forget about democratic values, or making the world free from terrorism, or the lives of Iraqis who foolishly sided with USA. (Who is bothered about them anyway?)
Force or cajole US allies from neighboring countries to take the burden.
Now let’s analyze the report (the paragraphs under ‘quote’ are from the original report):
If we try to understand the suggestions, they can be termed as:
1. ‘The redeployment of U.S. forces should take place in two phases. Phase one would take place in 2006, with the drawdown of 80,000 troops by the end of the year, leaving 60,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by December 31, 2006. Phase two would take place in 2007, with most of the U.S. forces departing by the end of 2007. United States troops would immediately and completely redeploy from urban areas, with Iraqi police, troops, and militias, like the Kurdish pesh merga, taking responsibility for security in these areas.’
- Let the Iraqi police, troops, and militias, like the Kurdish pesh merga die, why should we?
2. ‘It will also free up the remaining U.S. forces in Iraq to dedicate their efforts in 2007 to high-priority tasks related to our core mission.’
- the core mission ? Can we get an honest answer
3. ‘Phase two of the drawdown would begin in January 2007. By the end of 2007, the only U.S. military forces in Iraq would be a small Marine contingent to protect the U.S. embassy, a small group of military advisors to the Iraqi Government, and counterterrorist units that works closely with Iraqi security forces’.
- to protect the US interest.
4. ‘This presence, along with the forces in Kuwait and at sea in the Persian Gulf area will be sufficient to conduct strikes coordinated with Iraqi forces against any terrorist camps and enclaves that may emerge and deal with any major external threats to Iraq’.
- only air strike from safe distance.
‘Strategic Redeployment also means placing more focus on other elements of American power – including its diplomatic power. President Bush must personally lead a
diplomatic initiative in the region to create a cooperative security and intelligence network aimed at securing Iraq’s borders and taking down terrorist networks.
The redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq requires that Iraq’s neighbors play a more active role in supporting stability and efforts to fight terrorist extremists. Therefore, President Bush should convene a meeting of the heads of states in the region to discuss measures aimed at securing borders, taking down terrorist networks, and enhancing cooperation between military and intelligence services in the region. Working with
Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and other countries in the Gulf’
- force or cajole the US allies to take the burden.
Remove ground troop thus saving precious lives of American military personnel.
Keep US interests intact by keeping a small contingent to protect the US interests (read oil installations, Offices of US companies, embassy etc.) protected.
Use only air strike from Kuwait or other nearby military bases to destroy any militant hideout or base (Take a leaf from Israeli experience)
Forget about democratic values, or making the world free from terrorism, or the lives of Iraqis who foolishly sided with USA. (Who is bothered about them anyway?)
Force or cajole US allies from neighboring countries to take the burden.
Now let’s analyze the report (the paragraphs under ‘quote’ are from the original report):
If we try to understand the suggestions, they can be termed as:
1. ‘The redeployment of U.S. forces should take place in two phases. Phase one would take place in 2006, with the drawdown of 80,000 troops by the end of the year, leaving 60,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by December 31, 2006. Phase two would take place in 2007, with most of the U.S. forces departing by the end of 2007. United States troops would immediately and completely redeploy from urban areas, with Iraqi police, troops, and militias, like the Kurdish pesh merga, taking responsibility for security in these areas.’
- Let the Iraqi police, troops, and militias, like the Kurdish pesh merga die, why should we?
2. ‘It will also free up the remaining U.S. forces in Iraq to dedicate their efforts in 2007 to high-priority tasks related to our core mission.’
- the core mission ? Can we get an honest answer
3. ‘Phase two of the drawdown would begin in January 2007. By the end of 2007, the only U.S. military forces in Iraq would be a small Marine contingent to protect the U.S. embassy, a small group of military advisors to the Iraqi Government, and counterterrorist units that works closely with Iraqi security forces’.
- to protect the US interest.
4. ‘This presence, along with the forces in Kuwait and at sea in the Persian Gulf area will be sufficient to conduct strikes coordinated with Iraqi forces against any terrorist camps and enclaves that may emerge and deal with any major external threats to Iraq’.
- only air strike from safe distance.
‘Strategic Redeployment also means placing more focus on other elements of American power – including its diplomatic power. President Bush must personally lead a
diplomatic initiative in the region to create a cooperative security and intelligence network aimed at securing Iraq’s borders and taking down terrorist networks.
The redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq requires that Iraq’s neighbors play a more active role in supporting stability and efforts to fight terrorist extremists. Therefore, President Bush should convene a meeting of the heads of states in the region to discuss measures aimed at securing borders, taking down terrorist networks, and enhancing cooperation between military and intelligence services in the region. Working with
Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and other countries in the Gulf’
- force or cajole the US allies to take the burden.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]