http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2007/06/19/MailCall/We.Cant.Handle.Iraq.Why.Iran-2916133.shtmlIranian arms deals with groups like the Taliban are, like civilian deaths, another regrettable reality of warfare. After all, the U.S. has employed such tactics in the 1960s at the Bay of Pigs, 1980s to the Afghani Mujahideen, and even in the Iran-Iraq war, providing arms and chemical weapon know-how to Saddam. A June 8 report even revealed U.S. plans to provide weapons to Iraqi militants in the Diyala province; people who shot U.S. soldiers only months ago but decided they hate al-Qaida more, for now.
War is a nasty business and it's a damn shame that U.S. troops have to contend with unseen threats, but we can't claim moral superiority here. We've done it with terrible results: the rise of the Taliban and the gassing of Halabja.. Consequently, thousands have died and war hasn't resulted. Why? Think practically.
The U.S. can hardly occupy Iraq. What would happen if we added another, larger burden? As I recall, the author once argued for continued troop presence in Iraq. The logic was that withdrawal would leave Iraq in chaos. Where would the troops to attack Iran come from? They'd deploy from Iraq, effectively withdrawing. Lastly, the author commented that the U.S. should send the Middle East a warning. He may not be aware, but the Middle East is made of hundreds of factions with their own axe to grind. If the U.S. steps itself up as a common threat, these differences may vanish. Think of the divides in our own country and the united response after Sept. 11. Now imagine that in the Middle East. I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through. snip
Jacob Geray
Class of 2009