In an editorial today, the NY Times runs through a litany of security problems in Iraq and then concludes,
"The way to deal with all that is going wrong in Iraq remains as clear as it was on the day that Mr. Bush declared an end to major combat operations. No amount of razor wire around villages, secret spy agencies, tearing down of Saddam Hussein statues and money for American contractors can fix the problems. Instead of driving away France, Germany, Russia and Canada with financial sanctions, the president should be creating the room for compromise that will lead to those countries' sending money and troops to Iraq. That would help to create a secure enough environment for the United Nations to come in and take over the nation-building responsibilities, giving the occupation an international face."
I understand that bringing in France, etc., would put an international face on things in Iraq. What I do not understand is just how the presence of Franch troops, etc., will improve the security situation - especially since the Times noted the major problem in combatting Saddam is lack of intelligence. Wouldn't the French troops occuppy quieter spots in Iraq just as do all the other non US troops? Wouldn't US troops continue to be the front line troops in the combat areas?
Or does the Times really believe that France will now take on a serious combat role in the Sunni triangle?
"The way to deal with all that is going wrong in Iraq remains as clear as it was on the day that Mr. Bush declared an end to major combat operations. No amount of razor wire around villages, secret spy agencies, tearing down of Saddam Hussein statues and money for American contractors can fix the problems. Instead of driving away France, Germany, Russia and Canada with financial sanctions, the president should be creating the room for compromise that will lead to those countries' sending money and troops to Iraq. That would help to create a secure enough environment for the United Nations to come in and take over the nation-building responsibilities, giving the occupation an international face."
I understand that bringing in France, etc., would put an international face on things in Iraq. What I do not understand is just how the presence of Franch troops, etc., will improve the security situation - especially since the Times noted the major problem in combatting Saddam is lack of intelligence. Wouldn't the French troops occuppy quieter spots in Iraq just as do all the other non US troops? Wouldn't US troops continue to be the front line troops in the combat areas?
Or does the Times really believe that France will now take on a serious combat role in the Sunni triangle?
Comment