Don is still using Veitnam era tactics
Reader comment on item: Does Rumsfeld Favor Getting U.S. Troops out of Iraqi Inhabited Areas?

Submitted by American Muslim (United States), Dec 3, 2006 at 13:04

I respectfully disagree with Don Rumsfeld. If we leave cities without setting up credible government, Iraq is totally lost.

Iraq conflict has two sides: American and Iraqi.

American side's primary objectives are to limit loss of GIs, and bring order in the whole of Iraq. Iraqi objective is simple: Can American provide peace in Baghdad? This is how Iraqis have been raised for past many decades. Old habits die hard. We must expand green zone in Baghdad to show that Americans mean business.

It is time to start slowly expanding Green zone. We feel we are safe in Green zone. Unless it expands (and soon), we'll lose the current area as well.

So set up check points 2 miles out of green zone and call it purple zone. Stabilize it and move 2 miles further out.

When majority of Baghdad residents will see peace, militias will automatically lose power.

It is not going to be easy. Current Iraqi government and Mullah Sadr will resist this idea. We all know what happened when we set up checkpoints in Sadr city.

But we should ignore any such resistance and establish an ever-increasing peace-zone in Baghdad. We can win this war in 3 months.

Dr. Qazi

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.