Quote:
Quote by: Yarn  Maliki isn't dictator, he didn't have the power to meet some of those demands period, and he didn't have the power to meet some of them without losing his office. Democracy has its strengths and weaknesses, but frankly, I don't think Iraq's people are ready to elect a government which will pursue the national interest, instead of various sectional interests. Nevermind the single man Maliki, it is the aggregate form of the government itself.
That requested by those Sunnis, did not have popular support in the parliament, and so could not come to be. |
You're missing the entire point of this "surge," Yarn. Political reconciliation between the sectarian factions is THE goal. What have we gotten for the surge in exchange for more American death and war expenses? More political stalemate. Whether or not the Iraqis were ready for a democracy begs the question--if the Iraqis can't make the political comprimises demanded of them by our government and people, then why do we continue to support that government with troops on the ground?
Notice also the part in the article that details more violence in Baghdad and ethnic cleansing in Shiite areas. It belies all that rosy talk about defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that our own military concedes is a tiny fraction of the total Iraqi insurgency.
Leaving a civil war we can't control is actually an easy decision. How we leave--either in a panic or an orderly phased withdrawal--will be the tough part.