http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bombs_rock_Baghdad_leaving_at_least_70_people_dead/articleshow/2249403.cms
'The Surge,'a plan for a coordinated American strategy, implemented in Feb 2007, involved deployment of 30,000 additional troops in Baghdad and areas around the Iraqi capital to restore security by the summer of 2008. "Sustainable security" is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009. The overarching goal is to advance political accommodation and avoid undercutting the authority of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The plan seeks to achieve political stability. However, whether the strategy took into account the ever growing sectarian strife in Iraq and included measures to bridge the Sunni – Shia divide remains ambiguous. For, no increase in troop deployment can impact the security environment in Iraq unless the principal characters in the situation comprehend the underlying philosophy of the plan and are willing to act as partners in nation building.
The chaos in Iraq is further compounded by introduction of other regional characters with vested interests. In the North, Syria, going the Pakistan way, has become a sort of staging platform for injecting Al Qaeda militants of all hues into Iraq to settle a score with the Americans. In the South and South East, Iran has taken it upon itself to train, arm and support the numerous Shia militias to settle scores with the ‘Great Satan’ as well as the Iraqi Sunnis. In the West, The Saudies are playing a different game with rules known only to them.There are also the Kurds in the north with a militant agenda of their own.
In the resultant pot boiler that Iraq has become, cooling of temperatures cannot be achieved by flooding the Capital with troops and weapons. If at all, the additional troop deployment should have focused on the borders with Syria and Iran to curb any interference by the two in Iraqi affairs. This would also have stemmed the seemingly endless flow of terrorists, arms and explosives into the hands of elements opposed to the idea of stability in Iraq. 'The Surge' has positioned additional troops in an area which has become the final destination of terrorists from all over the world. A troop concentration of this level in built up areas is a sure recipe for inviting casualties.
The US avoiding troop deployment on the Iraqi borders with Iran and Syria is understandable as that could escalate the situation and widen the conflict in the region. Both, Iran and Syria, seem only too aware of the American hesitation and are bent upon exploiting the situation to their advantage. They must be made to recalculate the cost benefit ratio of indulging in such antics.
Under the circumstances, a modification of the American strategy to bring stability in Iraq may pay better dividends. ‘The Surge’, in addition to enhancing security measures in Baghdad, must focus on Iran and Syria, one at a time. The chances are that the second country will get the message and mend its ways. Engaging the land-locked and comparatively weaker Syria would be a better bet! A second prong of the same strategy should aim at drying up the area of all weapons; in effect, it implies disarming of all militias no matter what their affliation.
'The Surge,'a plan for a coordinated American strategy, implemented in Feb 2007, involved deployment of 30,000 additional troops in Baghdad and areas around the Iraqi capital to restore security by the summer of 2008. "Sustainable security" is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009. The overarching goal is to advance political accommodation and avoid undercutting the authority of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The plan seeks to achieve political stability. However, whether the strategy took into account the ever growing sectarian strife in Iraq and included measures to bridge the Sunni – Shia divide remains ambiguous. For, no increase in troop deployment can impact the security environment in Iraq unless the principal characters in the situation comprehend the underlying philosophy of the plan and are willing to act as partners in nation building.
The chaos in Iraq is further compounded by introduction of other regional characters with vested interests. In the North, Syria, going the Pakistan way, has become a sort of staging platform for injecting Al Qaeda militants of all hues into Iraq to settle a score with the Americans. In the South and South East, Iran has taken it upon itself to train, arm and support the numerous Shia militias to settle scores with the ‘Great Satan’ as well as the Iraqi Sunnis. In the West, The Saudies are playing a different game with rules known only to them.There are also the Kurds in the north with a militant agenda of their own.
In the resultant pot boiler that Iraq has become, cooling of temperatures cannot be achieved by flooding the Capital with troops and weapons. If at all, the additional troop deployment should have focused on the borders with Syria and Iran to curb any interference by the two in Iraqi affairs. This would also have stemmed the seemingly endless flow of terrorists, arms and explosives into the hands of elements opposed to the idea of stability in Iraq. 'The Surge' has positioned additional troops in an area which has become the final destination of terrorists from all over the world. A troop concentration of this level in built up areas is a sure recipe for inviting casualties.
The US avoiding troop deployment on the Iraqi borders with Iran and Syria is understandable as that could escalate the situation and widen the conflict in the region. Both, Iran and Syria, seem only too aware of the American hesitation and are bent upon exploiting the situation to their advantage. They must be made to recalculate the cost benefit ratio of indulging in such antics.
Under the circumstances, a modification of the American strategy to bring stability in Iraq may pay better dividends. ‘The Surge’, in addition to enhancing security measures in Baghdad, must focus on Iran and Syria, one at a time. The chances are that the second country will get the message and mend its ways. Engaging the land-locked and comparatively weaker Syria would be a better bet! A second prong of the same strategy should aim at drying up the area of all weapons; in effect, it implies disarming of all militias no matter what their affliation.
1 comment:
brilliant ...
Post a Comment