Iraq: Battlefield of the Middle East
According to Baker’s report, I agree something needs to be done to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute. Though America did support Israel, I am pretty sure we had no intention do so for spite against the Arabs. I highly disagree with shifting our main objective to getting our troops out. Before the discussion today, I was pretty passionate about getting our soldiers out, but not knowing the risks of doing so. Back then, my only reason was to keep more of ours from dying, but now I see things in a whole new perspective. Though there a death squads, traces of Al-Queda, and Shiite insurgents and what not in Iraq, the bigger concern is to stabilize the nation before its neighbors seek to either dismantle it or conquer it. Saudi Arabia announced it would send forces over to help “make sure the Suni don’t take over” when in fact the Suni are the majority. Right there, that’s a potential danger, for those forces could very well be terrorists. Note I said, could, not are.
The Removal of our troops would mean we had intensified and sped up the process of which Iraq would fall into an era of deep trouble and political unrest and then abandoned the nation left to its own devices and to its neighbors. I also believe that one day Saddam would have naturally died, or fell from power, but his strict removal by us swept the nation into a depression. This was the beginning of the struggle to keep Iraq standing on its own two feet.
Intensifying our presence there does seem more reasonable as long we are still supportive, but more along the sidelines. The Iraqi army will hopefully be able to support and protect its own country, and with our help (though it seems they really don’t want it at all) this could be possible. This completely contrasts with how I felt before, but hey, opinions change. Especially when they get a few facts straight.
