The Hard Choices

And isn't it sad that just as peace, permitted by a surge in US troop levels, is breaking out, the Democrats are selfishly calling for massive withdrawals? The Neo-Con mistakes of not enough troops initially, being compounded by the Neo-liberals' reluctance to make the hard choices.
Krishna, Chennai, India


In response to Krishna's comment above, the " hard choices " to which you refer, with Kissinger, Laird and Macfarlane calling for U.S. policy to " stay the course " would entail those that engender the greatest risk - choices regarding how to de-occupy Iraq.

What risk might be involved ? The risk of collapse into full-scale civil war in Iraq that could become a broader regional conflict. The obvious response to the surge, by definition is going to be a more potent, resilient insurgency. Is that the purpose of the surge - to foment a more potent insurgency that provides convenient pretext to " stay the course, " a convenient excuse to continue to occupy ?

Perhaps, or perhaps the occupation's underlying objective is Iran which can be attained by weakening the Kurds with Turkish forces and weakening al-Maliki, who has support throughout the region even though as a result of a Washington lobbying firm that represents Ayad Allawi, has lost his main political blocs in Iraq.

But certainly Maliki is a powerful argument against the theory of regional collapse as a function of U.S.-NATO de-occupation.