Iraq - What's To Be Done

SEARCH BLOG: IRAQ

I've had the opportunity to talk with a couple of Iraqi expatriates who live in the U.S., but have family in the Baghdad area.

They each have their own opinion about what should be done there [not necessarily agreement], but both are adamant that the U.S. must maintain a troop presence or there will be unbelievable killing and cruelty following a quick withdrawal. They wanted to know what I thought would happen if the Democrats took the White House.

So, I asked a couple of questions. How long did the U.S. keep troops in Germany after WWII? [hint: 60+ years] How long did the U.S. keep troops in Korea after the Korean war? [hint: 50+ years]

I believe that despite the political rhetoric from the Democrats, they know that if they withdrew U.S. troops and it was followed by a bloodbath in Iraq and escalated terrorism elsewhere... including the U.S. ... that they would be totally discredited regarding anything to do with anti-terrorism and national security.

In fact, I think some Republicans may secretly wish for Hillary to become president knowing it would be a disastrous no-win situation for her. If she keeps troops in, but is not effective in ending the conflict, she will alienate her own party. If she withdraws troops quickly and all hell breaks loose in Iraq, she will be seen as the president who was soft on terror. What she won't do is be aggressive in going after the people who are causing the problems because that would be too much like George Bush.

Then I asked the Iraqi expatriates what their solutions were.

One said to carpet bomb any area where there were terrorists. I pointed out that was rather drastic since many innocent people would be killed. He answered that they will be killed anyway. I believe his frustration was showing through clearly.

The other was not ready to answer, so I have an open invitation to publish that person's position here. Of course, it will have to be done with strict anonymity to protect family members still in Iraq.

My own feeling is this: the "insurgents" are largely financed, supported, or manned by Iran, Syria, and Palestine [sure, that nebulous al Qaeda, too]. We already know that Iran has training bases and supplies munitions.

It is time to move the battleground with specific actions using nothing more than cruise missiles... no troops:

• Act against specific targets in Iran and Syria where support actions for "insurgents" have been verified... no warnings necessary since enough has been said already.
  
• Let Iran know that if they do not act to remove "insurgents" who are attacking civilians in Iraq, their own cities will be subject to actions that will cripple their infrastructure... specifically, I would advocate the use of small EMP devices that destroy all electrical and electronic devices in an area without harming people. The number of such devices used would depend on the continuation or cessation of "insurgent" attacks on the Iraqi population. The targets would be areas where Iranian and Syrian government facilities are concentrated.
• Let Syria know that they will be next if they do not cease supplying sanctuary and weapons.
  

I know, I know... we can't do that! Just because Iran is supplying training and weapons for those who are killing U.S. soldiers, we can't attack them. That would be... would be... un-State Department! Just because Syria is providing "insurgents" weapons and sanctuary from which to move in an out of Iraq, we can't attack them. That would be... would be... un-UN!

Okay, never mind. Let's let Hillary figure it out... sure.

Meanwhile, I'll wait to hear from those Iraqi expatriates.

..