|
|
Strategic Imperative of Iraq – A Special ReportBradley T. Gericke | December 10, 2008 | 5 comments | Print | E-mail  December 3, 2008. Iraqi policemen practice room-clearing procedures in a mock room at the Iraqi Police Academy on Forward Operating Base Delta in Al Kut, Iraq. The policemen attend a two-week refresher training course to help maintain the security of their city.Photo by Army Staff Sgt. Rasheen A. Douglas. The Iraqi people, supported by the strength of U.S. and Coalition forces, have shown the courage to reject violence, creating a historic opportunity. ACG Special Report from Iraq In recent months, calls to end the war in Iraq have reached a crescendo in the American press. While some oppose U.S. military engagement overseas in general terms, most call for the redirection of military forces to other campaigns. How to balance risk and resources among America’s many military requirements is an important question, but it is one that must be resoundingly answered by re-establishing the fact that America will be safer if it remains committed to Iraq in 2009. The coming year, 2009, is extraordinarily important for Iraq because of the provincial elections in late January and the national elections scheduled to occur in autumn. These elections will solidify the political progress underway and place Iraq on the path to stability. And staying the course in Iraq will support a number of key strategic interests: - Iran: A stable Iraq is the Middle East’s best counter to the regime in Tehran that trains, equips and funds terrorists. Within a few years it is likely that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons capability. American forces in Iraq are today countering Iran’s ambitions, and the stronger the Coalition makes Iraq, the better the United States can confront Iran using the full range of American power and influence. - Counter Terrorism: A wide variety of U.S. national assets have been able to exploit America’s presence in Iraq to strike significant blows against international terrorist networks. Al-Qaida is one such organization that, while still lethal, has been substantially degraded in Iraq. - Enduring Strategic Partnership: Iraq’s parliament recently passed a Strategic Framework Agreement with the United States to establish a long-term cultural, economic and political partnership. It also approved a Security Agreement that welcomes the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for the next three years to undertake cooperative security measures, train Iraqi police and military units, and promote good governance and the rule of law. For the first time in many decades, Iraq is on the path to become a state that justly enriches the lives of its people. - Oil: Energy is critical to the global economy, and Iraq possesses some of the largest oil reserves in the world. All that we can do to assist Iraqi exports and maintain the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf is decisive to the international economy.  October 30, 2008. Army 1st Lt. John Nimmons, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, leads a patrol with Iraqi soldiers in Al Muhandiseen, Iraq. Photo by Army Staff Sgt. JoAnn Makinano. Help Armchair General by bookmarking to
            Tags: Iraq, War on Terrorism
|
|
|
|
||
What is Armchair General?Armchair General (ACG) and ACG online feature a unique, interactive editorial approach that invites the reader to decide the course of action in challenging historical scenarios, to step into the shoes of a battlefield commander. Leading historians and contributors lend integrity and credibility to this fresh presentation of historical and contemporary events. Armchair General is the INTERACTIVE history magazine where YOU COMMAND and decide the course of action! |
What We Write About
|
Our Other Magazines |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2004-2008 Armchair General L.L.C., All rights reserved. |
||
5 Comments to “Strategic Imperative of Iraq – A Special Report”
I understand the strategic importance of following through with this mission and I am in support of it. My occassional sparring with those who see the Iraq war as illegal and nothing more than President Bush getting even with Saddam sickens me.
How does one effectively explain strategic goals and, just as importantly, America’s responsibility to those Iraqi citizens who have placed their faith and well being in our hands as a result to those people who have no sense of history, strategy or the dynamics of international politics?
Perhaps any effort to make a reasonable argument is simply a waste of time on them?
This article, along with many others, makes a reasonable argument. Unfortunately, you’re probably preaching to the choir. Would articles like these be more effective if they were slipped into medium sized newspapers around the US?
Thank you.
By J.R. Riggins on Dec 11, 2008 at 1:14 am
…before bush invasion no Al Qaida terrorist was in Iraq. No Weapons of mass destruction…no link with Osam Bin Laden. Only oil…and a bloody regime (like Egypt or Algeria or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan). Today Israel have the atomic bomb, had spy in US and control from 1967 another country, but is not a danger.Tomorrow war to Syria after Iran and after…may be Russia? Do you remember the Monroe doctrine?
By stefano ciaramelletti on Dec 14, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Um stefano how do you know there was not al Qaida or weapons of mass destruction. For all we know they were laying low there and and when we got there they used them as decoys to save the nuclear weapons, though my story isnt perfect nor true i doubt yours is eather. you were probaly supporting bush goin there and then slowly started to hate his decision and turn against him. Why? the Media.
By D. Winton on Dec 17, 2008 at 3:58 pm
J.R. so you are in support of a war based on lies that has killed thousands of our troops and up to a million Iraqi’s? We aught to send you over there. D. Winton show me proof there were WMD in Iraq. You can’t and even if there was Saddam probably bought them from us. There is mountains of proof that the Iraq war is a furtherance of the neoconservative chickenhawk agenda. Do a little research guys before you post drivel.
By Tony on Jan 2, 2009 at 5:06 pm
1.) Iran- Iraq under Saddam was as good a counter to Iran as any. The CIA could have played their divide-and-maintain-balance-of-power for half that cost. America has enough problems in Iraq itself, let alone ‘influencing’ Iran. A coupl of Nimitz Carriers in the Gulf would have done nicely.
2.)Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq in the first place. There was no love lost between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, or any other terror agency for that matter. America has, essentially, invited AQ and is now trying to kick the obnoxious guest out.
3.)Try telling me that Saddam refused to sell oil to America. The Arabs are businessmen too. Saying that the Presence ensures oil security is preposterous.
4.) Only the Americans say Iraqis are happy. Look, democracy works in the west; no doubt about that. Iraq is a different story. At the slightest pretext, they start a civil war. Only Saddam’s iron hand kept them down. Barging in to throw him out never helped anyone. Iraq is free now, but at what cost? If i were an Iraqi, i would say,”Atleast under Saddam, we were able to walk on the streets without looking back; as long as we didn’t say a word about Saddam. I’ll take that anytime.” An average mid-east Joe wants peace at a bargain, not freedom at an unacceptable price. The ‘hope of future’ is a pipe dream; what is the average life expectancy of an iraqi?
By Larseld87 on Jan 11, 2009 at 2:12 pm