Phased troop withdrawal from Iraq
Posted: October 25th, 2005, 4:50 pm
I don't understand why so many people are so dead-set against a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, circa right near now. Why is it necessary to keep 160,000 troops just to finish training Iraqi security? Why do very few ever challenge this assertion? The endless massive troop presence is generating considerable violence, perhaps as much, or more, than it is 'containing'. Not only that, but it tends to make Iraqi security forces to rely too heavily on American troops to do what Iraqi forces could already be capable of doing themselves.
If we continue to shoot and bomb innocent civilians, including children, as a by-product of our massive troop presence, and then simply file it away as "collateral" damage, we are morally irresponsible IMO, and we will continue to do irreparable harm to our relations with the rest of the world community, the Muslim world, in particular. It has to stop some time soon. A phased drawdown is not "cut and run". So what's the problem? Someone please enlighten me.
Here's a related link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines
If we continue to shoot and bomb innocent civilians, including children, as a by-product of our massive troop presence, and then simply file it away as "collateral" damage, we are morally irresponsible IMO, and we will continue to do irreparable harm to our relations with the rest of the world community, the Muslim world, in particular. It has to stop some time soon. A phased drawdown is not "cut and run". So what's the problem? Someone please enlighten me.
Here's a related link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines