That article is slightly misleading. The 10 years comes from the following quote I believe.
Quote:
|
He added he was looking for a United Nations mandate to take action, on behalf of the Iraqi population, against those forces that continued to make trouble. "I have to be looking two, three, ten years out," he said.
|
So, the writer of the article took a bit of liberty in stating 10 years. Makes for a more heated article, and suckers people into thinking something that just isn't true.
OH... Then there's the key points in the article which you must have simply overlooked...
Quote:
|
Speaking before the latest attacks in Iraq, Brig Carter admitted that local forces would not be capable of maintaining security on their own after the 30 June handover of power to an Iraqi government.... "We are in cloud-cuckooland if we think we are going to create overnight a police force that is accountable to the population. Certainly for a number of years to come, western forces are going to have to be there to support the police force."
|
Perhaps you are in this cloud-cuckooland that is mentioned? I can't understand why else you'd simply think things can be turned over without any support.
There is no mention that any power other than the Iraqi government would be in power. The article simply states that there may need to be supplemental forces there to ensure a complete breakdown of power doesn't happen in Iraq. 10 years was simply part of a statement made by someone. Doesn't mean it will happen. Does it?
If you're going to read an article and then quote from it, atleast make sure you read the entire article. Don't just skim over it and pick out what you think makes sense. You've missed the entire point of the article by doing that. You've also taken quotes out of context in an attempt to say something. Taken with the rest of the article, you make no point whatsoever.