Iraq's ability to build up its own security forces is still not improving, says a draft report from the Government Accountability Office obtained by The Washington Post. The GAO reportedly concludes that Iraq has reached only three out of 18 progress benchmarks set by the United States. The reported findings contrast with a White House study saying eight goals have been met.
Should the current military strategy in Iraq be changed?
Do you think President Bush's "surge" policy is working despite the Jones report and the GAO findings? If the targets have not been met, should US forces now be withdrawn? Will any kind of withdrawal timetable only aid the insurgents in Iraq?
GAO is supposed to be non-partisan but ever since the held on to the keys of the transistion office in 2000, they have done things within certain limits to undermine the current administration. Rep. Waxman pretty much has control of GAO now and he is very partisan. This is not an endorsement for or against this behavior but listeners should be aware of GAO's drift.
The window of military options has long passed and played itself out in Iraq. (The British troops are ahead of the U.S. on their way out.) And the Bush Administration knows military options are gone now, but they're afraid of loosing gains they believe have been made since March '03. The situation has long transited to a period of enormous need for "state building": jobs, infrastructure, economic progress especially for the middle class, ethnic and religious reconciliation. None of these needs are really well suited for the U.S. marines, army or Navy to provide. If there was true international cooperation in Iraq (something the Bush Administration as vehemently discouraged)-- there might be today a committed group of nations working together to build up a peaceful Iraq. Where is the multinational support? Not even on the line-up, I'm afraid. If there is to be genuine progress in Iraq, it will take the U.S. as well as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, yes even Iran, to be stake-holders in the solution.
Before deciding whether the "surge" policy should be changed or not, it's important to understand the Bush Administration's motives in Iraq in the first place. What's at the heart of our intentions there? Is it building democracy, ensuring that Iraq isn't a haven for terrorism? or something else? Bush has used all manner of rationalizations for continuing a military strategy. What's really behind the U.S.'s desire to continue on militarily?
Yes, I think that the US military should immediately pull out of Iraq and seal the border off. Nobody gets in or out and then let them kill each other. Blame this whole mess on Mr. Bush because he is an idiot for starting the war and giving the american people a false pretense about the threat to the citizens of america. Iraq did not attack us the focus should be on Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaudi terrorist organization for attacking the US. It's been 6-years and he is still on the loose. I remember on September 11, 2001 that Mr. Bush quoted that "whoever is responsible will be brought to justice" I want to know why the administration has changed the subject to focus on Iraq. I want to see Bush's Administration held accountable for the lot of 3700 American soldier dying for no reason at all just because of Mr. ush's blindness as to for his agenda. I am ex-military served 15-years proudly and i am one pissed off ex-veteran that the media and the conservatives are glorify this war. Where is the Democrates with enough bullocks to say no and stop the funding of the war permamnetatly.
08/30/2007 7:31:51 PM
