As the politicians jabber and try to figure out some "honorable" way of leaving, other politicians solved their problems with the slaughter in Iraq by simply announcing a date they were leaving, and left. All our politicians are doing is playing politics and trying to save face.
As the ad says, "Just DO it!"
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9340/update.htmlThe debate over when the United States should exit Iraq has focused more on the size of U.S. forces than on the size of the overall coalition. Advocates on both sides of the issue should probably start to look at the coalition more closely. Over the past year, the size of the multinational contribution in Iraq has fallen by half, and most of the major remaining contributors are on record as planning to leave in 2006. Currently, in addition to the United States, there are twenty-seven members of the "coalition of the willing" that contribute some 24,000 mostly non-combat forces. That figure—down from the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when thirty-eight countries provided roughly 50,000 forces—is expected to drop in the months ahead.
Two of Washington's staunchest partners in the war, Ukraine and Bulgaria, announced they would withdraw their 876 and 380 troops respectively by January. Netherlands, which had a force of 1,400 in Iraq earlier this year, has pulled out nearly all of its troops. Italy, Australia, and South Korea are expected to follow suit in early 2006. Even Britain, the United States' strongest ally, has hinted it may draw down its troops by next year. "It seems likely the US will be virtually alone in Iraq as a foreign military power by mid-2006," predicts Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, in his blog on Middle Eastern politics.
Why are countries pulling out?
As casualties mount, the publics of many of the coalition nations are asking, Was it worth the effort? Many of these nations committed troops in exchange for some form of U.S. assistance, experts say. During a recent visit to Mongolia, for example, President Bush pledged $11 million for its 120 "fearless warriors" in Iraq as part of the White House's "solidarity initiative." Poland's presence in Iraq was motivated in part by the prospect of securing lucrative post-war reconstruction or oil contracts. Many Poles, however, were disappointed that Washington still refused to consider granting Poles the same preferences for U.S. visas enjoyed by longtime European allies like Germany and France.
Some experts say opposition to the war, always strong overseas, is building to an even higher pitch. Others say the escalating violence in Iraq is more to blame. "Their troops are probably seeing more than what we're seeing in the newspapers about corpses showing up and they're maybe saying to their leaders, 'It's only a matter of time before one of these things happen under our nose, and we're going to have to look the other way,'" Posen says. "Remember what happened to that hapless Dutch battalion at Srebrenica?" In 1995, overmatched Dutch peacekeepers looked on as Bosnian Muslims were massacred by Serbian troops at Srebrenica
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
