Wrong answer for Iraq

There are situations when it can be justified to intervene in another country, especially to stop genocide. Therefore it could have been right to remove Saddam Hussein using military force, even though I think it was wrong to do it unilaterally without support from the rest of the world.

Now we can see that the development in Iraq is all but positive. US won the war with ease but still – three years after President Bush declared mission accomplished – they lack a strategy to win the peace. Iraq is moving closer towards a total civil war. Since US intervened in Iraq US has a responsibility to stabilise the situation. Today US is using enormous – military – resources in Iraq and to solve the problems in Iraq US need to use even more resources. Bush opened up for that in his last speech about Iraq and so far it is a statement I welcome.

But then Bush moves in the wrong direction. He still seems to believe he has to win a war, he lack the insight that US now need to win the peace. When Bush tells us that US need to deploy more resources he is talking about military resources. When he tells us ‘restrictions’ on the American troops need to be lifted, he don’t understand that every Iraqi killed by American troops gives birth to a new suicide bomber.

Bush chooses weapons and is treating Iran and Syria. He disposes diplomacy and cooperation with these countries. US attacked Iraq and are de facto occupants in that country. The Iraqis were liberated from Hussein’s terror but the terror has not ceased. US do not have enough credibility to unite the fighting fractions in Iraq; they need help from Iraq’s neighbours. In that situation, Bush dismiss that solution and is instead preparing for military actions against Iran. The ground is prepared for a continuing moras in Iraq. It is a tragedy since that way won’t bring Iraq away from violence.

Detta inlägg är pingat på intressant.se. Andra bloggar om USA, Irak och Bush