Coonsey’s World

JEAN FIEVET of ABC wrote today the following about Iraq:

Serious questions remain about whether the recent improvement in security is sustainable. Iraqi troops still rely on American support. Al Qaeda is still operating in areas like Diyala and Nineveh provinces. The Shia militia affiliated with radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called a ceasefire earlier this year but some Iraqis fear that it may simply be regrouping. And, perhaps most crucially, Iraqi politicians are yet to take advantage of the momentum created by the surge to pass key legislation on oil and provincial elections, as well as reach out to those groups who have felt left out of the political process.

There’s also uncertainty about the future of the “Sons of Iraq,” which currently number around 100,000 across Iraq. In Jamia, about 100 have now quit after finding better jobs, and 180 have joined the police, leaving 240 waiting to see if they can get jobs inside the Iraqi security forces or join another work program.
Battjes warns that, “If the ‘Sons of Iraq’ are not transitioned in a satisfactory manner, there could be some serious security problems as a result.”

As the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said recently at a town hall meeting with his officers, “We’re not at the irreversible point yet.”

Associated Press writer Lolita C. Baldor wrote the following about Afghanistan yesterday:

Military leaders are weighing requests from commanders in Afghanistan for more troops, aircraft and other assistance. And they are trying to determine the right balance between the needs of the force in Iraq, versus troops in Afghanistan who are facing a Taliban resurgence.

To date, the fight in Afghanistan has taken a back seat to Iraq, which has been the strategic priority. While Iraq will remain the top goal, it now appears the military believes there should be a more urgent emphasis on Afghanistan than there has been.

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence…

“It’s a tougher fight, it’s a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there,” said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.

I’m thinking more and more each day that the enemy is playing hide and seek with our military troops.  They are flip flopping back and forth from Iraq to Afghanistan and back to Iraq using Iran and Pakistan as safe havens in between trips.  They will probably do so for years to come or until we finally walk away as the Russians did after eight years of fighting in Afghanistan.

We thought we had Afghanistan under control for a few years and that it was Iraq that was  worse.  Then we sent in the ‘surge’ of troops to Iraq and now Afghanistan is having security troubles again.

I’m afraid that once we begin pulling out of Iraq and moving over to Afghanistan, Iraq will once again become the danger zone and Afghanistan the safe zone.

When they know we’re coming, they ‘move out’.

It’s kind of like an ant colony.  They travel to the source of food.  You may kill off a few at each spot they visit, but if a few can escape, they start up a new colony somewhere else.

What’s the answer?  Stop the source of food.  In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, the most urgent source of food for the enemy is – disenfranchised citizens, unemployed citizens, citizens that have lost a family member at the hands of foreign troops.

Give them food, water, energy, education and jobs, jobs and more jobs – security is very important, but if the citizens are busy ‘working’ and ‘supporting’ their families, they will have less time and desire, to go ‘kill’.

Then get the ‘hell’ out of dodge.