I know the election is over and everything, but I just can't help but point to this article which contains several American soldiers talking about how they watched the Al Qaqaa site be looted and in late April and early May 2003 and couldn't do anything because they were so outnumbered:
U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen witnessed the looting and some soldiers sent messages to commanders in Baghdad requesting help, but received no reply, they said."It was complete chaos. It was looting like L.A. during the Rodney King riots," one officer said...
Soldiers who belong to two different units described how Iraqis snatched explosives from unsecured bunkers and drove off with them in pickup trucks.
The soldiers who spoke to the Times asked to remain unidentified, saying they feared retaliation from the Pentagon...
Four soldiers who are members of the Germany-based 317th Support Center and the 258th Rear Area Operations Center, an Arizona-based Army National Guard unit, said the looting happened over several weeks in late April and early May 2003.
Those dang soldiers are so biased.
- Log in to post comments
Good Afternoon
Nobody cares. It is a drop in the bucket. There is much to be done over there and hammering away at this issue is not going to change anything.
We need more men over there. How do we get them there and how will we pay for it. What will the consequence be in the world if we put 400,000 men in Iraq?
France and Germany aint coming to our rescue.
Sincerely
Nobody cares. It is a drop in the bucket. There is much to be done over there and hammering away at this issue is not going to change anything.
It's a drop in the bucket specifically because we did not go in with enough troops in the first place to secure the country, in particular all of the munitions dumps. This is just one of a huge number of examples. Hammering away at this issue might actually wake Bush up from this dreamworld he's living in with regard to Iraq, the one where everything is going brilliantly and "freedom is on the march". Oh wait, that was empty campaign rhetoric. But the truth still remains that we do not have the troops there necessary to secure that country.
You made a blog entry a couple of months ago where you questioned whether or not Bush would pull out of Iraq after election, if I remember correctly. It's going to be interesting to see if Bush really believed the "everything's going great" baghdad bob-esque rhetoric or not. And if he is willing to do what is necessary to bring true democracy to the country. I have a feeling, though, that he would prefer a military democracy like Turkey has. And where does this "war on terror" go from here. From the campaign rhetoric Bush believes military action is the answer. So which people not connected with Al Qaeda will he attack next?
I'd also like to foward some people to a weblog of a girl who lives in Baghdad. She's staunchly liberal, so it's biased, but it gives some idea of maybe what's going on there.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Just so we get both sides
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
Sincerely
Here's another
http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/
You made a blog entry a couple of months ago where you questioned whether or not Bush would pull out of Iraq after election, if I remember correctly. It's going to be interesting to see if Bush really believed the "everything's going great" baghdad bob-esque rhetoric or not. And if he is willing to do what is necessary to bring true democracy to the country. I have a feeling, though, that he would prefer a military democracy like Turkey has.
Yes, the blog entry in question was after a report appeared quoting unnamed sources in the White House as saying that Bush planned a quick pullout of troops after the election if he won. I doubted the story then, and I doubt it even more now, but as I said then I think it would be a terrible mistake to pull our troops out of there now, and in fact I favor putting significantly more troops in Iraq over the short term.
Frankly, I would prefer that Iraq go the way of Turkey than to have it become a miliant Islamic theocracy; the world will be much safer with the first option than the second. Turkey is at least a reasonably moderate nation that has shown a willingness to work with the rest of the world.
I have long linked to Riverbend's blog, as well as to Jason VanSteenwyk's Iraqnow blog. I think they're excellent resources for understanding how the war is viewed by an educated and reasonable Iraqi citizen and by an educated and reasonable military officer.
Frankly, I would prefer that Iraq go the way of Turkey than to have it become a miliant Islamic theocracy
Well, OK, but recognize that Turkey's secularism has come at a price. Turkey is not really a democracy. It is a country in which "democracy" has been guided by the military to keep the militant religionist parties (I'm being kind here--muslim parties) in check. And to keep the Kurdish separatist movements in check. And the Turkish army has taken power several times since 1920 achieve those ends.
Regardless, the fact appears to be that Iraq currently has no army that might be relied on to perform the task performed by the Turkish army. So it's not clear how your stated preference might be achieved.
Regardless, the fact appears to be that Iraq currently has no army that might be relied on to perform the task performed by the Turkish army. So it's not clear how your stated preference might be achieved.
Given the results of this week's election, it appears that this role belongs to the United States military.