Politicana

It is ironic how the United States’ war against radical Islam seems to have brought them back to the same countries they made war against 20 years ago.  First came Afghanistan.  This was a war against the Taliban, a regime that the Americans installed in the 80s because they felt it would be preferable to the Soviets.  They were wrong.  Then came the Second Gulf War, where the U.S. returned to Iraq either to fight terrorism or to replace Saddam Hussein, depending on whom you ask and when you ask them.  The original rationale for that war was long ago muddied by the continuing casualties and the constantly changing political scenarios.  Either way, it’s obvious that the situation in Iraq arose not because of who they installed in power last time they invaded, but because they failed to install anyone at all.  Now we recall 1992 as we read about U.S. military operations as well as a sanctioned invasion of Somalia by the Ethiopians.  It is becoming strikingly clear that any objectives we had the first time around in those countries were either accomplished temporarily, or not accomplished at all.

One of the major problems (at least in Afghanistan and Somalia) is the American’s tendency to side with their enemy’s enemy, no matter who that may be.  The Somali situation is a perfect example.  Somalia’s feeble 2 year old government had been overrun by an Islamic “militia”.  This threatened the United States, which has an inherent fear of any group that is both militant and Islamic.  It also bothered Somalia’s age old rival and neighbor Ethiopia, who was threatened by the fact they now had a capable and possibly hostile government next door.  The United States’ solution was simple, give a green light to Ethiopia who was just waiting for a chance to invade and replace the Islamic government with the one that had been in power before. 

These tactics make the U.S.’s pseudo-imperialism ineffective.  It’s obvious that you can’t gain the loyalty of the Somali people by overseeing an invasion by Ethiopia, their hated rival.  It’s also important to recognize that while the American media characterized the Muslim government as rebels, they were perceived very differently by the Somali people.  While their actions were arbitrary and no doubt harsh, in just a few months, the Muslim government succeeded in providing stability and stamping out corruption to an extent that hadn’t been seen since the Somali civil war in 1991.  Politics and religion aside, the people were just happy to finally have peace.  But now they see the United States as being responsible for re-installing a government of the corrupt and incompetent (many of the officials in the U.S. backed government are the same warlords responsible for the reign of terror that has been occurring since ’91, the President himself is a reported puppet – a former veterinarian with no political experience).  If the United States wants the loyalty of the people of the world, they need to exercise moral judgment when choosing their allies.  It is unacceptable to just team up with anyone and everyone willing to fight your enemies with you.

Little to the surprise but much to the chagrin of most Democrats across America, President Bush has announced a surge of 21 500 troops to Iraq. Questioning his handling of the war may be appropriate, but considering the dire political straits he’s been in recently, no one can question his resolve. Coming out swinging on the same issue that dropped his approval rating below 40% and gave a house majority to the Democrats for the first time in more than ten years is a daring move. Unsurprisingly, he’s coming up against opposition from both sides of the aisle. Democrats are attacking and Republicans – with the noted exception of Senator John McCain – are taking the opportunity to distance themselves from the administration.

But all the political manoeuvring fails to address the underlying question: Can the addition of just over 20 000 troops really make a difference in the sectarian struggle that has overcome Iraq? There are educated and experienced minds arguing on both sides of the debate, but from an outsider’s point of view 20 000 troops just seems to be too few to make a difference. With over 130 000 personnel already stationed in Iraq, and things going as badly as they are, a 15 percent increase in troops seems like it may just be an attempt to keep up with the mounting sectarian violence.

Not to mention that it’s not just the military aspect of the Iraq mission that has been failing. Forming a lasting peace between two warring religious factions can’t be achieved through military means alone. Political progress needs to be made. With Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki seeming unwilling to bring the hammer down on the local Shi’ite militia, but more than willing to persecute the Sunnis, this seems more and more like a transition form one unjust regime to another. On the other hand, at a time when even George Bush’s enemy’s enemy won’t be his friend, there is one small ray of hope left. If his political gamble does pay off, and this troop addition is able to calm the violence in Baghdad, then he will receive all the credit for staying a tough course against all political odds and succeeding in his mission.

SpokesmanReview.com - Bush set to press strategy despite wide opposition