The Guardian does not appear to carry a report on the matter, while The Indie relegates it to the inside pages, but yesterday's developments in Iraq are of some significance.
The walkout by the major Sunni party from the Iraqi government leaves the latter looking pretty threadbare, especially as the more radical Shiite elements led by Moqtada al Sadr withdrew from the government in June. Meanwhile the bombings continue - even as Vice President Cheney thinks that 'significant progress' is being made.
As I understand the position, there are essentially two arguments for the continued presence of US and UK troops in Iraq. The first is that they provide the security to restore effective and democratic government, a proposition which seems increasingly unlikely given the present incapacity of the present Iraqi administration.
The second is that the withdrawal of US and UK troops would make matters worse. This may indeed remain true, even although the present situation is hardly what one would describe as stable. But, to be brutal about it, is the continued presence of our troops merely postponing the inevitable break-up of Iraq and the accompanying bloodbath? If our troops remain until 2008, or 2010, or 2020, trying to keep the lid on and no doubt suffering continued casualties, is there any greater likelihood of a peaceful resolution? The last four years would indicate a lack of progress, even a deterioration, in the prospects. To suggest that things will get better in future is an expression of hope rather than experience.
It won't be easy getting out of Iraq but it has to happen sometime. And staying in Iraq would be no less difficult. I vote that we leave sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment