Quote:
Originally posted by Zeld2.0
If it is too small, then obviously they don't like what's going on
It would be the same as our country not sending soldiers to a country it doesn't want to despite there being a problem there
Same shit, different countries
But I think what maters about Arab troops is the fact that militants will think twice about shooting at another Arab - it doesn't help your cause when you're killing your own people. And if there is a show against these militants by their own country, they'll think twice about their cause.
It would be similar if American troops had to occupy a town or city to keep the peace say, after a riot or something - how many of thsoe rioters would think about shooting another American soldier? Most would at least think again
|
I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about in the first three sentences.
For the rest, that's a ridiculous line of reasoning. How many Arabs have been killed by insurgent action in Iraq? If your reasoning was correct however, would it not also follow that these militants would be even less likely to fire on fellow Iraqi Arabs? If so, then getting the Iraqis up to speed in security is the best possible scenario and, coincidentally, the current plan.
As it stands, the insurgents do not want free elections nor do they want Iraq reformed because if it is that means the US was successful. Iraqis are the best solution to the security problem because they know their country. They know their people. They know their history. They will be effective once they commit to it. They won't commit to it until Iraqis are in charge.