I normally stay away from subjects like Iraq. To put it bluntly, it wasn't my war. It wasn't fought for my benefit. And this article is not meant to justify the actions of previous American administrations in attacking that unfortunate country over the last 18 years.
But the sitting American president, Barack Hussein (the Blessed of Hussein) Obama, has decided to pull out American troops from that nation by 31 August 2010. According to David Eshel, writing of "The Inevitable Fate of a Post-America Iraq,"
During his whirlwind stopover in Baghdad, last Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama has declared that Iraqis "must take responsibility for their country". He predicted the next 18 months would be trying, as American troops start to leave a country still facing security threats and political problems. "They (the Iraqis) have got to make political accommodations," Mr Obama said. "They're going to have to decide that they want to resolve their differences through constitutional means and legal means."
In short he said, "Boys, on 1 September 2010, you're on your own. Good luck and
good riddance G-d speed to you – we're outta here!" David Eshel's article is all about the consequences of what the United States has decided to do — cut and run.
A few highlights:
Any decent strategic analyst, looking into the Middle East future, must ask: "what if the other side won't cooperate?" What about al-Qaeda and its Salafi-Wahabi support, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds force, Hezbollah from Lebanon and the intelligence services of Tehran and Damascus, will they ignore this rare opportunity to act?
According to the article, Obama appears to believe that by that magical date of 31 August 2010, Iraq's own forces should be able to control their own country. But, at least as Eshel puts it, any experienced military professional will tell you that to train such a force from scratch in just 18 months is either totally shortsighted or based on sheer ignorance of existing facts in this unpredictable region. The article then proceeds to demolish the Obama strategy. But in the end, that is not my problem – that is your problem as Americans. I suggest you read this article over and cogitate a bit over it.
As an Israeli, my concern is what happens along the way, particularly when Iran decides to take over a hefty portion of Iraq at the expense of the Saudi thugdom. Persian empire building is nothing new, and if backed up by the possible threat of nuclear weapons, it can get rather nerve-wracking – especially if our own so-called "government" here decides not to attack Iran.
Of course, Americans will be concerned to have exit points from Iraq. It doesn't appear that way now, but it may well transpire that the safest exit route for American troops out of Iraq is west through the northern edge of the Arabian desert through Jordan (Eastern Mandate Palestine), and then through Israel.
For me, that's where all this gets very touchy. "Through Israel" means through Judea and Samaria, where I live. And it just happens that the Americans will be trying (as they have since 1970) to shove an Arab terror state down our throats, the second Arab state to be erected in land set aside in 1920 for a Jewish state.
So, while the war in Iraq really was not our concern (not too much, anyway), the exit of American troops from the region is.
What a convenience it would be if, just in time, 100,000 American troops show up, tasked with "helping" the Israeli government expel folks like me from our homes?
It's things like this that keep me interested in being able to shoot straight. I have this nasty feeling that if I do have to shoot a weapon, it won't be at Arabs or Israelis — it will be at Americans. If that is the case, I better damned well be able to shoot straight.Powered by Sidelines