The Paradox

Benjamin R. "Randy" Mixon says he needs more troops in Diyala Province:

Mixon, speaking Friday by teleconference from Camp Speicher, outside Tikrit, to a Pentagon news conference, said that he did not have enough soldiers to provide security in Diyala. The local government is "nonfunctional" and the central government is "ineffective," he said. . . .

Mixon was withering in his criticism of the Iraqi government, saying it was hamstrung by bureaucracy and compromised by corruption and sectarian discord, making it unable to assist U.S. forces in Diyala.

Why, though, isn't this the reason to take the troops out? After all, what's the point of throwing ever more American blood and manpower in support of a corrupt, ineffective government? And this is the essential problem. One could easily imagine a post-war situation where Iraq had a government that was not yet competent to run the country, but showed signs of rapid improvement such that if we kept supporting it for a while more, things might turn around. In the real world, though, we're into the fifth year of this business and instead of improving, things just change and get bad in different ways -- what's the point of responding to the failures of the Iraqi government but sending even more troops to fight?

Comments

Matt,

Related to this, you should check out this op/ed from the FT: Revive the Republican Way of War. I bet a lot of your readers would be interested in your opinion of it, especially in the context of the current Iraq War.

Posted by Juan | May 12, 2007 2:54 PM

do you mean:

"why, though, isn't reason to take the troops out?"

if so, please edit.

Posted by alice | May 12, 2007 3:20 PM

After all, what's the point of throwing ever more American blood and manpower in support of a corrupt, ineffective government?

If only we could look to some kind of precedent from recent history to supply us with guidance in this area. Sadly, since we're in such uncharted waters, you really can't expect us to have any preexisting understanding of this lesson.

Posted by Steve | May 12, 2007 4:02 PM

After all, what's the point of throwing ever more American blood and manpower in support of a corrupt, ineffective government?

Which government, the Iraqi or the American?

Posted by Dick Durata | May 12, 2007 4:41 PM

The US is in Iraq to possess Iraq's oil.
Read "The Struggle Over Iraqi Oil" by Michael
Schwartz at tomdispatch.com for the history and
potential of Iraqi proven oil reserves. Do you
honestly think that the US will ever leave Iraq
and abandon $10 trillion worth of oil?
Also, look at a map. Four permanent bases in Iraq
will enable the US to control Saudi, Iranian and
Caspian Sea oil as well. The Bush family has been
on that mission since 1918. Read Kevin Phillips'
"American Dynasty". G.W. Bush isn't trying to
top Poppy, he is continuing the family mission.
I am a liberal on most issues, and I was opposed
to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. However,
oil is power and the US must control it to remain
the sole superpower. Every American benefits in
many ways because the US has that position.
By January 20, 2009, no president will dare to
leave Iraq and endanger the fat, dumb and happy
lifestyle of the American people.

Posted by PooleBowman | May 14, 2007 1:55 AM