There were two articles on Iraq in the Irish Times (Saturday 24th and Monday 26th Nov) which carried the same message – the US has all but won the war in Iraq. Rory Miller, a lecturer on Mediterranean Studies in London is cautiously gleeful, writing that the recent US troop surge “has been a success”. There is a drop in Iraqi civilian casualties, US casualties and suicide bombings have fallen. Al-Qaeda are broken, he writes, and their “humiliating defeat is Iraq’s opportunity and there is now … a “breathing space” for the country to get back on its feet.” Miller notes – but does not pay much credence, to the suggestion of some analysts that the drop in violence owes more to a decision by Shia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, to freeze sectarian attacks on Sunnis rather than the troop surge.
Charles Krauthammer in his weekly Monday column was a lot bullish than Miller. He lays into critics of the war, accusing them of ignoring the realities on the ground: “Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shia militants quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because [the Iraqi] parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?”
Monday’s Irish Times also carried a letter from five members of staff at NUI, Galway, criticising a recent visit by the US ambassador to Ireland, Thomas C. Foley, to the university. They criticise the ambassador’s role in implementing privatisation in Iraq: “In that capacity, he assisted in a war in which it is now estimated that over one million Iraqis have been killed, the majority women and children. Of course many more have died as a result of the occupation, from food shortages, pollution from uranium and other toxic weapons, lack of clean drinking water and medicines.”
Can those who supported the invasion of Iraq on the pretext of WMD – remember them? – really claim ‘victory’ in the light of what has happened since the invasion? Is there really a lessening of violence or simply a lull while the US and Iran spar over the nuclear issue?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
US troop surge in Iraq 'a success'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"“Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shia militants quiescent, the capital city reviving."
Well done lads. Of course (notwithstanding the loathsome regime of Saddam), before the invasion there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, nor was there a Sunni insurgency, nor was there Shia militancy.
Part of the problem of course is the fact that the Bush regime attempted to merge the 'War on Terror' with the 'War in Iraq', when of course they were two completely separate issues.
However, given the mess the Americans and British have made of the situation in Iraq, the edges have become blurred, and as Reg says, the Al Qaeda element has become central to the Iraq issue whereas before it was a wholly separate problem.
I suppose if nothing else, at least the Iraqi debacle can be claimed by the Americans as a rationalisation of problems- whereas before they had a big problem with Al Qaeda and a not-so-big-as-it-turns-out problem with Iraq, at least now they only have to handle one big massive mess of a problem involving both Al Qaeda and Iraq! At least that should be a bit easier for Bush to understand if nothing else...
As an American, I have to fight and scrounge for non-politicized information from Iraq (if such a thing can really exist). I'm glad for the CBC,the BBC and independant news agencies in America, who still uphold some standards. I am completely certain now that there is no organization called Al Qaeda. There are certainly individuals and groups who self identify as
"Al Qaeda" but the picture of some global organization, dedicated to restoring the Caliphate, or worlwide Islamic revolution is a bogeyman.It is no more real than a hostile nation in Asia called "Katmid" or "Pacifica". The U.S and its Ally Brittain, are in Iraq to take and defend whats left of the largest known, remaining oil reserves. The world economy depends on it and I guess we are at the begining phase of what promises to become a very,very ugly century. No industrial power, such as the U.S will submit to lower standard of living/ecomonic catastrophe if they have an army that can take the stuff. As far as the oil goes, we are past the point of no return now.It only gets more expensive and rare from here on and until we have effective, affordable, alternatives, we can expect more of this,with China and Russia engaging inevitably. New energy sources are the path to peace.The alternative just might be armageddon.
Post a Comment