|
U.S. must stay in Iraq to keep Iran at bay 3.5.2007
By Matthew Barnes |
|
|
|
May 3, 2007
Many have been clamoring recently over the
congressional-executive battle on a timetable for
Iraq. The battle over the timetable and funding
occurring now is simply politics.
Both sides are bargaining; the Democrats came out
with their harshest position - a timetable - and the
president has done the same with his veto.
Now that Democrats and Republicans have each other
on record with their votes (which will be used in
the 2008 elections), they can come to the middle
ground and negotiate.
But what is really at stake is more than
congressional legislation. The American public (and
possibly some members of Congress) see this as a
battle that the Iraqis (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds)
should decide for themselves, without the influence
of the United States.
However, many fail to see what is actually happening
in Iraq. The three groups have not come to an
agreement with one another and remain in a
stalemate.
Then who is directing the future of Iraq? The answer
is outside forces, and there are principally two:
the United States and Iran.
To leave Iraq now is to surrender the country to
Iranian influence.
A hostile Iran, which denies the Holocaust, seeks
nuclear weapons, and wishes to achieve hegemony in
the Middle East, cannot be allowed to bring Iraq
into its sphere of influence. Such an outcome would
weaken U.S. security and leave the U.S. with less
power abroad.
Many Democrats realize this situation, which is why
it is important to look past the rhetoric. Those who
truly believe that Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary
Clinton and others see Iraq's political culture as
deterministic of the outcome are living in an
outdated behavioralist world.
Matthew Barnes of Western Hills is graduating this
spring with a degree in political science from
Creighton University.
enquirer com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 