Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Reading Signs in the Rubble in Iraq: Update

Nicholas Kristof reports in today's New York Times on a poll taken by Zogby of 944 soldiers currently serving in Iraq. Asked "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?" 72% answered that U.S. troops should pull out within one year, only 23% said that they should stay "as long as necessary." 2/3 of those polled said that "to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions." I take this poll to read that most of our soldiers serving in Iraq would agree with me- since the only militarily effective option (doubling force size) is a political impossibility withdrawal should happen now and should proceed quickly. Our soldiers have served valiantly, well, and at terrible and growing cost. Even if keeping current force levels in Iraq could indefinitely preserve a status quo that is better than what would follow a withdrawal, it is simply unfair of those of us who continue to live in comfort to force that sacrifice upon our men and women in uniform.

1 comment:

josh narins said...

When I was in college, I studied philosophy. The greatest, most succinct, most informative, and least biassed review of "western philosophy" I ever read was from China.

The view of the outsider, I've reasoned since, is often less passionate, and should always be considered, if possible.


In the case of Iraq, however, I'm far less concerned with what our troops think than with what Iraqis think.

The poll often cited lately is that 49% of the Iraqis have no problem with attacks on Americans.

I seriously doubt doubling the number of troops would change that much.

In Viet Nam, maybe 80% of the population was against us.

I don't believe it is has much to do with the terrain, or the types of weaponry, but has a lot to do with the numbers of, and reasons for, supporters and detractors of any regime.