Each Thursday, we put one of our local newsmakers On The Spot. This week: U.S. Rep. James Walsh
This week's question: You were opposed to the troop “surge” in Iraq, but some say it had a positive outcome. Was this the right move for our military to make?
The military surge in Iraq was one component of the recommendations proposed by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) that the president impaneled. There were a number of recommendations that also included a step up in pressure on the Iraqi government regarding provincial elections, oil revenue sharing, and reconciliation to address earlier de-Ba'athification efforts. Recently, some progress has been made in those vital political areas.
The ISG also recommended a surge in international diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors, as well as broader international recognition of Iraq's government, combined with financial support.
Of those recommendations, I thought it was unfortunate that the president chose to focus primarily on the military surge. If it was part of a comprehensive approach, I would have supported it.
There has indeed been a significant reduction in violence, especially in the country side and, notably, Anbar Province, which had been an incredibly dangerous place, and, relatively speaking, still is. While the military surge itself, should and can claim a reduction in the violence there, it should be seen in the context of other important developments.
• Sunni Shieks in Al Anbar and elsewhere decided to throw in with the United States against Al Qaeda.
• Muqtada al-Sadr called for a cease fire of his Shia militia. Prior to the surge, Shia militia were causing the most trouble. He has since decided to extend the cease fire, which is great news.
• Agreements on petroleum revenue sharing and reversing de-Ba'athification - the process of removing former members of the ruling Ba'ath party from the military and civil service - are recent legislative developments.
• And the Sunni, while in some places questioning alliance, continue to support, as opposed to attack, American forces.
History will be the judge of the current strategy in Iraq. Recently, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen said that all the progress gained in recent months could change depending on future events. My original reasoning for opposing the surge was that military action alone will not bring the desired result of a free, independent and stable Iraq. I still believe that. The Iraqi government needs to continue to move in the right direction in order to sustain and build upon all that our brave servicemen and women have fought for and sacrificed so dearly.
If you have an On The Spot question, call news editor Mike Dowd at 253-5311 ext. 234 or e-mail michael.dowd@lee.net
The military surge in Iraq was one component of the recommendations proposed by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) that the president impaneled. There were a number of recommendations that also included a step up in pressure on the Iraqi government regarding provincial elections, oil revenue sharing, and reconciliation to address earlier de-Ba'athification efforts. Recently, some progress has been made in those vital political areas.
The ISG also recommended a surge in international diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors, as well as broader international recognition of Iraq's government, combined with financial support.
Of those recommendations, I thought it was unfortunate that the president chose to focus primarily on the military surge. If it was part of a comprehensive approach, I would have supported it.
There has indeed been a significant reduction in violence, especially in the country side and, notably, Anbar Province, which had been an incredibly dangerous place, and, relatively speaking, still is. While the military surge itself, should and can claim a reduction in the violence there, it should be seen in the context of other important developments.
• Sunni Shieks in Al Anbar and elsewhere decided to throw in with the United States against Al Qaeda.
• Muqtada al-Sadr called for a cease fire of his Shia militia. Prior to the surge, Shia militia were causing the most trouble. He has since decided to extend the cease fire, which is great news.
• Agreements on petroleum revenue sharing and reversing de-Ba'athification - the process of removing former members of the ruling Ba'ath party from the military and civil service - are recent legislative developments.
• And the Sunni, while in some places questioning alliance, continue to support, as opposed to attack, American forces.
History will be the judge of the current strategy in Iraq. Recently, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen said that all the progress gained in recent months could change depending on future events. My original reasoning for opposing the surge was that military action alone will not bring the desired result of a free, independent and stable Iraq. I still believe that. The Iraqi government needs to continue to move in the right direction in order to sustain and build upon all that our brave servicemen and women have fought for and sacrificed so dearly.
If you have an On The Spot question, call news editor Mike Dowd at 253-5311 ext. 234 or e-mail michael.dowd@lee.net
The Citizens' Say
There are 2 comment(s)
curmudgeon wrote on Apr 3, 2008 3:33 PM:
As long as the "billionaire cry-babies" are the ones pulling the strings in this government, what they want is what will happen. I want to know what we can do about it.
Jeeze! but it makes me steamed to hear the lame, repetitious claims the government makes about "turning points" in this mess we created in Iraq.
Bravo again to Jim Walsh for calling things as they really are, not as the administration would like them to be.
"
AJ wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:27 AM: