USA

    US Lawmakers Speak Out on Iraq Conflict, Offer Few Concrete Ideasi
    X
    June 17, 2014 11:26 PM
    Swift gains by radical Sunni militants in Iraq are provoking widespread concerns among U.S. lawmakers of both major political parties. But few are going on record as to what the United States should do in response. As VOA Senate correspondent Michael Bowman reports, Iraq’s deteriorating security situation comes at a time when Americans show little enthusiasm for U.S. military re-engagement in the country.

    US Lawmakers Speak Out on Iraq Conflict, Offer Few Concrete Ideas

    Published June 17, 2014

    Swift gains by radical Sunni militants in Iraq are provoking widespread concerns among U.S. lawmakers of both major political parties. But few are going on record as to what the United States should do in response. As VOA Senate correspondent Michael Bowman reports, Iraq’s deteriorating security situation comes at a time when Americans show little enthusiasm for U.S. military re-engagement in the country.


    You May Like

    US-Russia Tensions Complicate Syria War

    With a shared enemy and opposing allies, Russia and the US are working to avoid confrontation

    Video Re-opening Old Wounds in Beirut's Bullet-riddled Yellow House

    Built in neo-Ottoman style in 1920s, it is set to be re-opened in Sept. as ‘memory museum’ - bullet-riddled walls and bunkered positions overlooking city’s notorious ‘Green Line’ maintained for posterity

    Cambodian-Americans Lobby for Human Rights Resolution

    Resolution condemns all forms of political violence in Cambodia, urges Cambodian government to end human rights violations, calls for respect of press freedom

    This forum has been closed.
    Comment Sorting
    Comments
         
    by: Robert Ezergailis from: Canada
    June 18, 2014 1:55 PM
    Bad news concerning Iraq. A formal request to the United States to conduct air strikes against Sunni militant opponents of the Shiite government that holds power in Baghdad. Apparently having failed to gain sufficient support from Shiite allies in the immediate region, Baghdad is coming to the United States for military assistance to defeat the rebels. An indication that the battle against the rebels is not going well, and that what was at first touted as being a terrorist attack is in fact a major uprising against the Shiite regime. It is my firm belief that no political good and no long term stability would be gained by any United States action, inclusive of air strikes against Sunni targets in Iraq. Any such action risking losing more in the long term than it might chance to gain in the short term. Washington ought to remain completely neutral, and leave both sides, Sunni rebels and Shiite government forces and militias to seek whatever assistance they might choose to seek within the Mideast region itself, in support of what is clearly sectarian strife, following a long history of sectarian strife in the region. The moral high ground is to avoid joining the conflict in any way, by any means, in opposition to the basic causes of the conflict itself, which involve persistent wrong doing on both sides of the sectarian divide. Joining one side against the other can only do more harm than good, in terms of any higher principles or ideals that Washington may want and choose to represent. It would also severely and perhaps irreparably, damage Washington's future ability to be a mediator and peace maker in the region. Taking sides is not the way to broker peace.