|
Repeat after me: THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ UNTIL AFTER BUSH INVADED and OCCUPIED. Now write that on the board 100 times until you understand.
The 2000 dead soldiers milestone is symbolic of too many young men and women killed under false pretenses. Comparing this fiasco to either WW is ludicrous. (Comparing it to the Spanish-American War would be much more plausible; false pretenses, global projection of power, a weakened adversary, etc.)
To claim now that we have to stay there to stabilize the Middle East is pure horse manure. It defies logic. Iraq is now the most unstable place there. But, it wasn’t Iraq that was causing whatever instability may have existed; they were essentially neutered in 1991. I’m sure the Kings of the other repressive regimes of the Middle East love the fact that our young men and women are the targets of the terrorists and not them.
Do you really think our presence will do anything but delay a civil war? As long as the US holds the Iraqi political process under domination, there can be no true self rule. We’re the cop who tries to break up a fight between two brothers. They both turn on him and forget (for awhile) why they were fighting each other.
Oh, and where in my post did I say anything about immediate withdraw?
Don’t get me wrong, I think we should. But I’m pragmatic enough to see that that is unlikely to happen. What I do demand is a realistic schedule for the “newly elected” constitutional body to take over with a commitment that the US will not be in Iraq permanently. Everyone running for the next Congress should demand that the flow of blood and money stop.
__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry
In Vino Veritas
|