After an Invasion
'Coaltion' forces entered Iraq with the intent of disarming it. Or, so we were told. Then the reason was to remove the regime. Then it was to bring freedom and democracy to the country. Although I think the reason for the invasion is important, now that it has been done, we need to figure out what these forces do next - and what happens as a result of those choices.
The New York Times reported last night that a Pentagon official said the US wants to maintain four bases in the country, but apparently doesn't yet know why those bases are wanted. But, as the article points out:
"As American forces withdraw [from Iraq] in the months ahead, the Bush administration plans a military relationship with the new government in Baghdad that would give the Pentagon permanent access to four air bases in Iraq. These would serve as a foothold to project American influence into the heart of the unsettled Middle East. The scope of the partnership and access is not yet defined. But coupled with the American military presence in Afghanistan, the bases in Iraq would be felt in Syria and would flank Iran on both sides."
One wonders what "influence" we want to project, especially in light of the current situation in Afghanistan, where things are not going all that smoothly. The "Taliban remnants are staging a slow but steady comeback in the countryside," according to a Newsweek article. The same article also points out that the reach of Karzai's central government still is limited to Kabul and women in some areas can be forced to have a hospital virginity check if they ride in cars or walk with men other than their husbands or relatives.
What influence are we exerting there, since our original goals were to find bin Laden and route out the Taliban? Did we have a plan then of how we would influence or rebuild a nation or did we act impetuously because as Colin Powell said, "Bush was tired of rhetoric. The President wanted to kill somebody?"
Given the recent rhetoric against Syria and Iran, the idea of military bases in close proximity to either country is not comforting since it makes it easier to conduct affairs impetuously before having a reasonable plan of follow through.
One wonders also what "influence" we want to project, especially in light of Donald Rumsfeld's March 20th assertion that 'coalition' troops would stay in Iraq "only as long as necessary to finish the job and not a day longer."
In addition, such actions give rise to the formation of new consequences, such as the establishment of an Islamic defense alliance. The Iranian paper Siasat-E Rouz reports:
"A Muslim activist in human rights affairs, based in Belgium, has proposed to set up an Islamic defense alliance similar to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to protect Islamic countries
against attacks of foreign forces."
We all need to think... and listen ... and plan. And, be careful of whos words we believe.
permalink posted by: jgh 7:32:09 AM
|
