My posts on politics have been sparse lately, mostly after Obama’s inauguration. That is not because of a disinterest in the subject, but because the seeds are still being watered by this incumbent, per se. My support of Obama has left me with high hopes that are almost impossible to accomplish. To expect such fast and drastic change after 8 years of shit-throwing is unreasonable. The economy, I am told, has gone to the dumps in this post-Bush era we live in. All this talk of recession and crisis seems, to me, like a big figureheads way of trying to create a studied dip in thier grand graph of world economics in order to get a future high spike for their money-mongering ways. But, then again, I have to say I know very little about macroeconomics, or any economics for that matter.
One things I do know about is foreign policymaking, which brings me to a subject that has taken a backseat recently to the economic crisis – The US’s exit strategy from Iraq. Obama’s US is in Iraq still and everyone is clamoring to give suggestions for a smooth and quick exit from this drawn-out war. Yet, it is hard to go back in time and find any exit strategies from any wars that went smoothly, that is, without some sort of oppression scheme, internal violence or a complete change in the country’s economic system.
Leaving a war can sometimes be as painful as starting one. Iraq’s issue is prime for this presidency and, even though everyone wants a safe withdrawal, chances are it will be highly unlikely. The sectarian hostility is one reason why, but, the country’s history with political corruption, the regional instability, the divide between rich and poor and the looming threats (no matter how unfounded) from neighbors makes for a very sticky situation.
This is not to say that Obama should be given some slack with this formidable obstacle, but just to re-state that we are still dealing with the banana peels from the old buffoon.
I doubt politically the issue is about what happens to Iraq after disembarkation so much so as it is about how do you honor the American troops who have given their lives over there and not make the whole war seem meaningless.
Obama’s SOTU address tried to make that case by saying the troops were victims of a poor leadership at the very top, conservative and right wing bloggers instantly attacked this stance by saying “troops are no victims” and more of their armchair war mongering. The average US trooper welcomed the decision as seen in the AP interviews of troops reacting to the withdrawal announcement.
As for what happens to Iraq, the violence and sectarian problems arose because of the strange division between those trying to fight the Americans and those inciting chaos to further bog down the Americans. Sectarian violence was inflamed by AlQ in Iraq and insurgent forces hoping to raise conflict.
With America gone the imperialist is gone, violence will start to subside as the Iraqis realize the only problems are being caused by those still fanning warfare. This becomes a civil conflict that is internal for them to solve without the specter of Americans or Western meddling.
Historically one needs to look at Vietnam and see that American withdrawal did not make that nation implode internally.
I think also wants to rectify its image, so the pullout has to be smooth. And Vietnam – it was followed by an oppressive regime, just like a said.