I don't understand

Submitted by Monica (Italy), Dec 1, 2003 at 07:03

Well I do understand your argument in the ideal principles, but I don't see them reflected in today's situation.

If you remove coalition forces from patrolling the cities and move them to the desert (?), what about security and prevention of terrorism?

"Fixing" Iraq has been a consequence of the need to establish security for western interests first of all, of course. The two things have been mutually dependent in the new American policy, so how can you separate them now, especially with terrorist groups from nearby countries, or Baathist loyalists, exploiting the situation?

I believe the US-led coalition has even more of an interest in making sure those incidents do not spread, and that does seem to require coalition forces to remain on the streets at least for some time. Also because Iraq, unlike post-liberation Germany, didn't go through anywhere near a thorough elimination of those affiliated with the regime. As long as those million-ish fedayeens are still around (be it in Iraq or Syria or anywhere nearby), coalition forces will have to be too.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".