I've been stewing on this for a couple days. Just not quite sure how I wanted to approach this. But, it really has been eating at me.
Obama said last week, and it was echoed by Biden that "Victory" was not what we were shooting for in Afghanistan. This just totally set me off.
But then, I had to sit back and think about it. Were we actually shooting for a "Victory?" The answer is a resounding YES. The question becomes how do you define that.
By our National Security Strategies, National Defense Strategies and Mission Statements overseas we are striving to help train, mentor, and build self-sufficient countries that are stable and productive members of the world community. Countries that are not mirror images of us, but rather governments and infrastructure that reflect their own inherent culture and history. Countries that respect human rights, and provide basic services for their citizens.
Our victory is that Afghanistan and Iraq will both be these things. Our Victory is all of are troops being redeployed. That is Victory. To declare anything else means you do not understand our own foreign policy or you simply choose to ignore it and want to cut and run. Hmmm wasn't Obama against the surge, and said it would fail, and the best thing to do was just get out immediately......
Betsy
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Status of Forces in Iraq???
From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/24/AR2009072403877.html
When insurgents attacked an American convoy with AK-47 rounds and a couple of grenades on a dusty highway in a Baghdad suburb this week, U.S. soldiers returned fire, chased the suspects through narrow alleyways and raided houses.Tuesday's clash killed two Iraqi adults and a 14-year-old and wounded four people, including two children.
When the shooting subsided, another confrontation began. A senior Iraqi army commander who arrived at the scene concluded that the Americans had fired indiscriminately at civilians and ordered his men to take the U.S. soldiers into custody. The U.S. military said the soldiers had acted in self-defense and had sought to avoid civilian casualties; U.S. commanders at the scene persuaded the Iraqis to back down.
The incident, apparently the first time a senior Iraqi commander has sought to detain U.S. soldiers, signals a potential escalation of tensions between U.S. and Iraqi forces trying to find a new equilibrium as Iraq assumes more responsibility for its security.
Both sides have starkly different interpretations of vaguely worded restrictions on the authority and movement of U.S. forces that went into effect more than three weeks ago. Those differences, and the friction they are causing in U.S.-Iraqi military relations, have been sharply underscored by the Abu Ghraib attack, which appears to be the first time U.S. soldiers have used deadly force since the new restrictions were imposed.
Wow, after all our Soldiers have done for you. I know this is not every Iraqi Citizen, but if you don't want us, then fine! Although, I am sure that this is political to show how the new government can be tough... but come on, REALLY? Do the Iraqi people really want to go it totally alone right now. I am not so sure.
I'm having a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction I'm sure, but this sits very badly with me. I've attended too many Memorial Ceremonies for my husbands men, to read things like this.
Betsy
When insurgents attacked an American convoy with AK-47 rounds and a couple of grenades on a dusty highway in a Baghdad suburb this week, U.S. soldiers returned fire, chased the suspects through narrow alleyways and raided houses.Tuesday's clash killed two Iraqi adults and a 14-year-old and wounded four people, including two children.
When the shooting subsided, another confrontation began. A senior Iraqi army commander who arrived at the scene concluded that the Americans had fired indiscriminately at civilians and ordered his men to take the U.S. soldiers into custody. The U.S. military said the soldiers had acted in self-defense and had sought to avoid civilian casualties; U.S. commanders at the scene persuaded the Iraqis to back down.
The incident, apparently the first time a senior Iraqi commander has sought to detain U.S. soldiers, signals a potential escalation of tensions between U.S. and Iraqi forces trying to find a new equilibrium as Iraq assumes more responsibility for its security.
Both sides have starkly different interpretations of vaguely worded restrictions on the authority and movement of U.S. forces that went into effect more than three weeks ago. Those differences, and the friction they are causing in U.S.-Iraqi military relations, have been sharply underscored by the Abu Ghraib attack, which appears to be the first time U.S. soldiers have used deadly force since the new restrictions were imposed.
Wow, after all our Soldiers have done for you. I know this is not every Iraqi Citizen, but if you don't want us, then fine! Although, I am sure that this is political to show how the new government can be tough... but come on, REALLY? Do the Iraqi people really want to go it totally alone right now. I am not so sure.
I'm having a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction I'm sure, but this sits very badly with me. I've attended too many Memorial Ceremonies for my husbands men, to read things like this.
Betsy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
