I have found recently asking myself what happened to Afganistan and Iraq after the U.S/ George Bush established that they can not find what they were intending to find.
Osama Bin Laden could not be found in Afganistan and Saddam Hussein was found in Iraq and is now dead.
So what I would like to know is what are the U.S military doing in both these countries?
As far as I am aware both are totally unstable countries politically and socially but seeming as the media find these countries no longer news worthy I find that I no longer have much of an idea.
From the knowledge I do possess, I view that the U.S went in and destroyed these countries and that they are not much better off than before. I am aware that Saddam did need to go- but really now that he is can America not leave the Iraqis to rebuild their lives and country? The same goes for Afganistan- although Osama can not be found and disputedly probably won't ever- why can't Afganis start to rebuild?
This leads me on to ask what President Barack Obama has invisaged concerning Afganistan and Iraq. I am pro Obama and do believe that he has much more empathy than Bush so I can only hope to see these two countries be given aid to help restore and work towards a state of stable democracy.
It is a very complicated situation.
ReplyDeleteThe situation in Iraq is improving slowly day-by-day. However, if the US withdraw today, the situation would rapidly deteriorate and in all likelihood the Iraqi state would collapse. The government and army are not yet strong enough to defend themselves, given the huge number of tribal and religious militias which roam the country. More time is needed for the Iraqi government to protect what it has done and to continue to rebuild the country, and the army needs more time to grow and train, so that it is strong enough to fight the militias and keep the country together once the Americans leave. Even Obama is predicting that large numbers of US troops will need to remain there for many years to come (I believe 60,000), but the rest of the troops are due to leave some time next year.
The situation in Afghanistan is even more complicated. The US did not go in simply to get Bin Laden. It went in to also overthrow the Taliban government which ran the country, and which provided refuge for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. After the invasion in 2001 the Taliban quickly collapsed. However, in the few years afterwards, when Iraq had become the focus point and US troops were shifted then, the Taliban has regrouped and is now a serious threat to the NATO forces defending the country. Not many people know this, but I believe casualties there have been higher there than in Iraq for many of the past months. People also don't know that although troop numbers are being slowly reduced in Iraq, most of these troops are simply being moved to Afghanistan.
What makes it even more difficult is that many of the Taleban fighters are operating out of villages in Pakistan, which makes it very difficult for NATO to defeat them. The Pakistani government has so far been very uncooperative, but recent signs have been that the new government is more willing to help. For the moment the situation in Afghanistan is poised the could go either way. We shall have to wait and see. However, with the number of US troops there increasing, and if the Pakistani government continues to crack down on it's side of the border, we could rapidly see improvements being made there.
Nice summary. The un-newsworthiness of Iraq can be taken as good sign: the situation is improving.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem in Afghanistan concerns the poppy fields. The US accuses farmers of using the proceeds from the drug trade to fund the Taleban. But any attempt to eradicate the poppy fields will only drive more people to the Taleban as livelihoods are destroyed.
It seems that United States is also facing a conflict closer to home: Mexico and the drug cartels.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is US citizens who are buying the drugs and sending weapons back to the Mexican cartels.
The US really should not have gotten involved in Iraq in the first place. Yes, Saddam needed to go but it should have been up to the Iraqi people to revolt against him or for the other Middle Eastern countries to deal with. It is good news to see that Obama has set a withdrawl deadline. It is about time the US and the rest of the world should be able to put this messy conflict behind us and to let Iraq rebuild itself without pressure from the US.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that Bush already set a deadline before he went out of office, and that the one Obama has set is essentially the same. Remember also that the withdrawal Obama has in mind only withdraws 'combat troops' from Iraq, which apparantly still leaves some 60,000 troops there. That means that even under his plan roughly half of US troops will be staying in Iraq indefinately. Furthermore, US aid will continue to be vitally important to Iraq for decades. Somehow I can't imagine Iraq being free from US influence for quite some time to come.
ReplyDeleteSo far under Obama there have been no changes in their policy towards Iraq. What happened to all the change rhetoric he spoke about in his election campaign? Is it too early for me to announce that the American people have been fooled again?
You are right that the United State's policy towards Iraq has remained unchanged despite the change in President.
ReplyDeleteBut to be fair, President Obama inherited the Iraq war, and his options are very limited. Like you wrote in your first post, 'the Iraqi state would collapse' if there was sudden and complete withdrawal of US troops.
Yes, but the prevailing mood in the US during the elections was that they didn't care what happenened in Iraq, and simply wanted the troops home NOW. Obama promised to do that. The fact of the matter is that despite all his rhetoric about being the complete opposite of Bush, he is doing exactly the same thing Bush had planned to do.
ReplyDeleteIn that case it was simply irresponsible of Obama to promise such a thing. Given the huge costs (and not just financial costs) of the Iraq war and subsequent occupation, the United States will want to be sure that the Iraqi state won't collapse as soon as they leave.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the withdrawal deadline?
Coming back to the post...you asked "what are the U.S military doing in both these countries?"
ReplyDeleteWell...apparently they are 'delivering' democracy. It is rather unfortunate that democracy is not something you can just DELIVER to a people of another state, it is a process. Even Condoleezza rice agrees on that one!
Before the U.S invaded, Iraqi women had gained access to work and education. Now the state is reduced to rubble. On a similar note...were the U.S troops ‘delivering’ democracy to the Vietnamese too?
Obama may talk of pulling the U.S troops out of Iraq, however, how is he going to reverse the damage caused to the state’s infrastructure and how is he going to account for the Iraqi civilians who were killed during the ‘war on terror’? http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonview.asp?search=site&catref=cwan68&NC_Category=&ANDkeyword=iraq+war&ORkeyword=&TITLEkeyword=&NEGATIVEkeyword=
I agree that the situation is very complicated... I also agree with basically everything Mathew has said... One thing I think is very interesting and almost sad is that since the election little to almost nothing is said about Iraq...In Obama's most recent press conference it wasn't even really an issue anymore... Its funny how in prosperity people find all sorts of things to complain about whereas in depresion people are only interested in the economy... But yes to pull out of Iraq now could let irag slip into cival war and chaos...no easy fix
ReplyDeleteOne more thing I think is important the withdraw program in place in Irag at the moment was a Bush plan...not Obama who hasnt 100% decided what to do yet...
ReplyDelete