Wake Me Up When September Ends
As the administration scrambles to tell bigger and more preposterous lies to try and convince the American public to support the status quo, it strikes me as odd that one simple question isn't being asked. The bush administration has now gone to the position that in spite of announcing the escalation in January and deploying the additional troops in February, "The Surge" has only been in place for two weeks. Just since the LAST troops deployed in the surge arrived in theater, not since the first. So they say "give it a chance to show progress".So we wonder, how much time do they want? Wait until September, they say. September is the point where the General will report on how well the surge is working. Just wait until September. You'll see.
September? You mean THIS September? That's less than fifty days away. So these criminal idiots who have managed this bloody horrorshow from the beginning, who have had American troops on the ground in Iraq in large numbers for over FOUR YEARS are now telling us, seriously, that things will turn around in 45 days. That's appallingly dishonest.
I could go into all the reasons why the surge can't work, why the problems in Iraq are not military problems, why there's absolutely no reason to believe that the Iraqi government has any motivation for compromise. I could lay out a serious, thoughtful case for ending the American occupation of Iraq immediately. But there's just no need. The administration desperately trying to convince you and I that things in Iraq might somehow be significantly different in less than two months is all the information anyone needs to make an informed decision.
They are merely fighting for the status quo. As long as American troops are bleeding into the sand in Iraq, they can say they haven't failed. I think they really believe it. Under no circumstances will bush and cheney allow the reduction of troop levels while they are in office. Reasons for this are not completely clear, but it's part ego, part a strategic desire to have a strong American military presence on the oil fields, and part of it is if they were to withdraw, say, 100,000 troops and the violence levels actually decreased, they would be exposed for the murdering thugs they are.
There is one (possibly) good reason for keeping American troops in Iraq. Without the American presence, interference in the form of increasingly active participation by regional actors such as Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel would be a very serious threat to regional peace and stability. But here's the thing. America acted in a grossly irresponsible fashion when we invaded and occupied Iraq. So the fear is if we end our irresponsible occupation, other nations might act irresponsibly. And that's a possibility. But it's at least equally possible that those neighbors may recognize that they have to live together and might therefore find a way to end the fighting and begin to build.
It doesn't come with a guarantee. Maybe it isn't even likely. But it really is the best option we've got...
posted by mikey @ 9:13 AM
5 Comments:
I mainly agree with you here on all but one point: your measurement of the liklihood that it would be a "very serious threat to regional peace and stability" were Iraq's neighbors -- even the Bad Guys, Iran and Syria -- to participate to any extent in negotiations for the future of Iraq. US propaganda has, through the whole history of its entanglement in the Middle East, subtly depended on the unstated underpinning notion of a White Man's Burden. But these nations are not without an appreciation of civilization: Damascus may be the oldest continuously occupied city in the world, the Persian Empire rose and flourished long before the Roman Empire, etc., etc.
I dunno. I look at per capita and raw data of military spending for countries in the area, and I find many of Iraq's neighbors among the top ten or twenty (surprisingly, in view of the State Department's frequent warnings, Iran is well out of those rankings below Malta and New Zealand). But perhaps the Saudi and Kuwati despots need those toys: much as neophyte hookers, surprised by a sudden lucrative income stream, will first turn to the expense of drugs as a way to maintain fiscal balance of a sort. Syria is pretty busy right now fending off serious diplomatic threats and Egypt has some serious domestic oppressions to implement. Turkey vs. Kurdistan? Sticky at best, but with the American commitment to fighting terrorists (except Cubans or Iranians), the Kurds should soon learn to stop messing with NATO members.
Full and immediate withdrawal would not fully and immediately solve all of Iraq's problems. The sanctions and the invasion have wrecked the nation's infrastructure, so that reparations to Kuwait and Toys R Us and Coca Cola as specified by the UNCC might have to wait until the basic sewage and electricity problems are solved. But evidence suggests that sectarian strife in this nation, which has had a couple of generations of secular polity, results from strategems largely fostered by the occupying force. One might expect a fairly rapid disposition of the (perceivedly) puppet government, followed soon by a home-grown solution to the problem of national rebuilding and management.
Full and immediate withdrawal would not fully and immediately solve all of America's problems: the rape and brutalization of Iraq has not been a good way to make friends in the region. Al Qaeda remains a threat, although not the inflated threat that both Bush and bin Laden claim it to be.
Perhaps a proper solution to several problems simultaneously would be to simply redeploy American troops to the 1967 Israeli borders: eliminate the Israeli settlements and force Israel to stop grabbing land and water resources. Lift the bolckades that have transformed Gaza to a vast prison camp. To deal with refugee Palestinian claims of Right to Return, perhaps generous compensation packages could be diverted from the billions of dollars currently spent on military aid to Israel. Jerusalem may need special status as an international city, and inevitably there would be people whining on both sides of the divide, but the notion is not without simplicity and a tenor of fairness. Israelis get Israel and Palestinians get Palestine; no more American soldiers are pointlessly killed; no more Iraqis die for exhibiting patriotism; bin Laden's crew is left without a platform.
But it's as unlikely as the America 2.0 envisioned by The Hon. Dr. St. Rev. Bradley S. Rocket, Esq, PhD, MD.
Hey Mikey,
Did you serve in Iraq? I was reading your posts at Sadly, No. Pretty deep stuff.
You're an excellent writer!
What is particularly frustrating is that there is absolutely no attempt, anywhere, for a political settlement to any of the problems in the middle east. In fact, it seems the aim of the cheney administration is to create more and more chaos. Is he trying to steer us into all out global war? Is that really his goal? Is that how the rethugs gain eternal control? I don't know, but it's scary to think about. I'm not a big conspiracy theory person, but cheney scares the hell out of me.
Good insights in this post.
Also, it should be noted that the Petraeus report will be written by the White Hous,e using information Pet provides.
Because they've been so vigilant in providing the public with the unvarnished truth.
No kidding, it's better than auditing a class; you get to write the tests, as well as give yourself a final grade. "I give myself an A-, because I just TRIED TOO HARD! Half a grade off for making everyone else look bad."
Post a Comment
<< Home