What I've heard the President say is that he might send in some drones or bombing attacks and there will be no troops on the ground. He wants Iraq to come to the plate and start defending themselves; the mass defections from the Iraqi military have to stop. And, I've heard a whole bunch of double-talk and spin about the reasons for what is happening.
Now then, I pointed out there are two options: (1) stay out, or (2) go in and give them every thing we have, win the war and secure the country. I suggest that there be no in-between solution or attempt; if we have to go to war, go to win. I stand by that opinion.
If we go for a partial "solution," we're never going to see the end to this problem in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. We must deal those factions from an absolute position of power, or not deal at all. If we choose not to get involved, we must understand that our homeland security risks are going to go sky high.
This problem is so convoluted that it would take forever to explain it; it involves Iran, Syria, Shiites, Shia and centuries of war. If it were my decision to make right now, I'd go in, win convincingly, and occupy the country for 20 or 30 years. If we put our minds to it, we could have it all over and done with within 30 days and we'd have control of their oil fields and government. We'd also send a clear message to the rest of those who would attack this country that we're not putting up with any guff.
If we're not willing to do that, we need to stay home entirely and seriously build up our armed forces and homeland security, firmly close our borders and isolate ourselves.
As for what our illustrious President is doing, he's left Washington for a weekend golf and campaign get away to California... so Iraq is obviously not that important to him. That makes his record perfect: every time there's been a serious crisis, he's managed to leave town.
That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment