Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq?

[Damieux]

Originally posted by Aristotle
For the love of God, Kharum, that is outrageous arrogance.

No, outrageous arrogance is trying to silence and intimidate opposing political opinions. The importance of public perception on the reality of politics is a timeless excuse of those who seek to stifle free speech. “Perception is reality” was every bit as true in the days of Teddy Roosevelt as it is today. Hell, if I cared to take the time, I am certain that I could find a famous quote from ancient Rome that expressed this same sentiment.

There is absolutely nothing absurd about Kharum, a citizen of the United States, offering suggestions on how he thinks his government should handle its affairs. That is in fact his civic duty.

There is nothing different between Kharum offering suggestions and you expressing your opinions in this, or other, threads. None of us (to my knowledge) are experts on the topics under discussion. Nor is any true expert or authority likely to heed our opinions or suggestions. Kharum’s suggestions are at least expressed in articulate posts that reflect the diverse sources that he obviously reads. I find them extremely refreshing when compared to the regurgitation of neoconservative propaganda from sources like townhall.com that is so sadly prevalent in other posts.

It is clear who is the partisan in this discussion, and its not Kharum. Your post attributes intentions and opinions to Kharum that he has never expressed. You attack him for “excessive partisanship” and yet you are the one who keeps diverting this discussion to the election and away from our handling of the occupation of Iraq. Over half of your post is dedicated to election year political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Kharum has expressed legitimate concerns about our mishandling of the occupation of Iraq that have nothing to do with the election in November.

Evidence is increasingly mounting that the U.S. has thus far mishandled the occupation of Iraq. From the outset, the occupation of Iraq was characterized as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. However there is a strong case to be made that we failed to capitalize on the Iraqi good will that we won by toppling Saddam Hussein by badly underestimating the amount of resources necessary to win the hearts and minds. Before we even invaded Iraq, there were warnings from humanitarian groups and military officials that the U.S. was not devoting adequate resources to the post-invasion occupation. The problem in Abu Ghraib prison, for instance, can be traced to a failure to properly train the troops responsible. Also, the U.S.’s ideological efforts to compare Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler led to mistakes like the de-Baathification policy that we are only now correcting. Another part of the problem, I think, is the way we initially went into Iraq, with complete disregard for the United Nations and world opinion. The administration was clearly correct in concluding that this decision did impede our ability to invade Iraq, but I fear that it is now damaging our ability to form a government in Iraq that the Iraqi people will recognize as legitimate.

As for the title question of this thread: “Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq?”, my answer is: I hope so, but I increasingly doubt it. I fear that we have now missed the opportunity when we could have handled the problem by throwing resources at it. I absolutely agree with Kharum that a new direction is needed. That is a wholly separate issue from whether the current administration can provide that new direction. People should stop trying to suppress legitimate concerns about the handling of the Iraq occupation with cries of partisanship.