HAYDEN'S VIEWS ON IRAQ.
Iraq should do what it was supposed to be doing..
What caught many people's attention this week was not just the Iowa caucuses vote, but also a salient bunch of remarks by a former CIA director in President George W. Bush's administration, Michael V. Hayden.
He was commenting on President Barack Obama's policy of troops withdrawal from Iraq by saying, as the the headline indicated, that "U.S. pulled Iraq troops too soon." (CNN 01/06/2012).
Suffice it to say that with his illustrious background as head of the United States Intelligence at one time after the post 9/11 years, and a proud military history behind him, no one in his or her right mind would dare say anything contradictory to his comments.
He was not being critical of President Barack Obama per se; he was alluding to the timing of the withdrawal event, as that was bound to set off a sectarian conflict in that country. However, who on earth could stop that, since sectarian or religious strife has been going on for centuries, it was traditional and part of the Iraqi culture.
The bombings and other atrocities that were going on in Iraq now, after the U.S. troops left, were heart wrenching; but American troops could not be forced to "baby sit" for any more years, while the people in that country were fumbling to use the basis of Democracy that America has given them to build a better nation for themselves.
Candidate Barack Obama has made speeches during his 2008 political campaign, that he would end the war in Iraq. Now, as president, he has kept that promise; but the eventual and significant gesture should come from the leaders of that country, that they would force themselves to find a way to live together peacefully, despite the differences in their religious beliefs.
The troops withdrawal was surely in agreement with what Rep. Ron Paul, a candidate in the current Republican Party nomination race, has been harping on ( and one could only paraphrase him) that, "America is not the policeman of the world", just as well as "Nation building should not be part of the U.S. foreign policy"
Moreover, the timing, which has always been a moot point, could not have come at the right moment, when Obama was fighting for his reelection against a backdrop of a staggering national debt of $14 trillion dollars, and a sour American economy.
The U.S. could not afford to fight two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and be able to stand on its own two feet economically (and as far as militarily and strategically were concerned, the man in the street could not comment; he was still a layman).
He, Obama, has made it abundantly clear that the funding of the two wars should stop. It could be brought back home to rebuild a strained economy under his watch; and many Americans have agreed with him a hundred percent on that score.
It was true, as Mr. Hayden has said, that the U.S. was engaged in having troops in some hot spots around the globe, as in Korea, in Japan and in Europe. However, the question should be asked, whether that was practical to be done everywhere?
Besides, in spite of everything, including the Obama administration's efforts to have talks with the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, for a fraction of troops to stay behind, they the Iraqis themselves have maintained that the U.S. has overstayed its presence in their country. In that respect, if there was sectarian violence there, who should be held accountable; Iraq or the U.S.?
Mr. Hayden has spoken from his vast experience in the intelligent community; but he should realize that his country has done more than enough to help Iraq, and that it was about time, in this modern day and age, for the people there to refrain from personal conflicts on political grounds, and on religious dogma, and to start building a productive society for their citizens there in that country.
Enough should be enough by the U.S. for Iraq.