Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Chi vuole andarsene e chi vuole restare

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months 
and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of 
course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation 
from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, 
self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has 
given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is 
continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South 
remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and 
other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing 
greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by 
Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is 
where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, 
there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on 
the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than 
before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni 
candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. 
People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in 
the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against 
the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to 
protect it.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to 
live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 
terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists 
or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set 
back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on 
stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will 
allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical 
war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the 
outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom 
of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us 
directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and 
progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American 
national and economic security priority.
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but 
it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians 
who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, 
the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the 
Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and 
Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, 
Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments 
more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime 
minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride 
that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in 
the Arab world. He is right.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million 
Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 
million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in 
October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections 
for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis 
have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted 
for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 
terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the 
Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, 
registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and 
going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous 
political campaign, and a large number of independent television 
stations and newspapers covering it.
None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the 
coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the 
progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those 
forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of 
securing the country.
The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they 
asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is 
whether the American people and enough of their representatives in 
Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by 
Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into 
the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more 
worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's 
elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in 
Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public 
opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and 
increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis 
for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are 
better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are 
confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they 
are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan 
political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will 
and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming 
victory.
The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. 
George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling 
vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which 
Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis 
themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 
terrorists who would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in 
Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American 
people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed 
over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was 
removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; 
but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American 
fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The 
administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" 
accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting 
unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of 
our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The 
Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and 
polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi 
forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities 
of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. 
Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military 
themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a 
mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar 
province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.
Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of 
the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to 
"lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and 
that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American 
military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the 
increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes 
well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence 
there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our 
presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.
The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, 
and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is 
now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political 
experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its 
elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the 
"build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work 
American and international teams are doing to professionalize national 
and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the 
ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about 
their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying 
most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, 
innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal 
with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked 
their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the 
growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was 
insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the 
opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper 
it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by 
their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of 
America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our 
nation's history. Semper Fi.
Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.

 America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
 10.000 terroristi si imporrebbero a ben 27 milioni di persone ?
Devono essere tipi in gamba :)
e i 150.000 soldati usa non riescono ad imporsi a cosi' pochi nemici ?
ROTFL
 
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

e i 150.000 soldati usa non riescono ad imporsi a cosi' pochi nemici ?
Nemmeno l'ESERCITO NAZISTA non e' riuscito ad imporsi a "cosi' pochi
nemici" partigiani in Italia, caro fessacchiotto di un Massimo1.
-Stefano

 nemici" partigiani in Italia, caro fessacchiotto di un Massimo1.
i partigiani avevano l' appoggio popolare....
forse gli insorgenti irakeni sono appoggiati dalla gente ?
Vuoi paragonare l'esrcito usa in Irak a quello nazista da noi ??????


Vuoi paragonare l'esrcito usa in Irak a quello nazista da noi ??????
Neanche per sogno. L'esercito nazista era formato da *MILIONI* di
soldati, non certo da 150000 soldati di cui molti riservisti.
-Stefano

 Vuoi paragonare l'esrcito usa in Irak a quello nazista da noi ??????
eh...
Am.

cirlama: ma sei inglese o italiano?