The most powerful fool on earth has stamped his little feet and with the stroke of his pen, has consigned those he commands to an endless misbegotten hell. Chimpasaurus Tex has vetoed the supplemental spending bill sent up by both houses of congress. He has said no to funding that goes to veteran care, he has refused funding for training, equipment and combat readiness, he has cast aside funding to repair Walter Reid Hospital. And he has done this to deny the will of the congress, the senate and of the American people to redeploy forces out of Iraq.
Despite his peevish and intractable nature, despite his inability and unwillingness to take responsibility for his decisions and their repercussions I suspect that George the Lesser knows something that isn't being discussed. There is really no doubt that America lost in Iraq. The mission has failed. In more than four years of operations, more than 3,300 armed forces personnel have perished, tens of thousands have been wounded and countless and uncounted Iraqis have lost their lives. The Iraq adventure was neither quick, easy nor cheap. Native oil revenues will not and have not paid for the war. The American taxpayer will be burdened with hundreds of billions of dollars of costs and interest for the ongoing fiasco. None of America's operational goals have been met, none of America's rationales for invasion have proven true. After all this time, blood and money spent, the Iraqis still haven't managed to locate a florist to properly greet the occupation forces.
So, what might petulant George know? My guess is that some little bird has whispered in his ear, the one that Jesus isn't using, to inform him that there is no easy exit for American forces. There is no central-fall back position from which to evacuate troops. There are no allies on the ground, there is no functional Iraqi Army to take up the mantle of security. George W. Bush has ignited a civil war and there is no rooftop in Saigon from which to load the choppers. Regardless of the political machinations in Washington, the withdrawal from Iraq will be paid for in innocent blood, both Iraqi and American and all of the scrubbing in the world won't remove it from his hands.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Lovely rhetoric, man, absolutely stirring. But you are a performer, aren't you?
Leaving aside the contradictions ("endless misbegotten hell" vs. "the withdrawal from Iraq"), and the Shakespearean references ("all of the scrubbing in the world won't remove it from his hands"), we are left with yet another ho-hum anti-Bush screed, regurgitating all the usual items. Do you get these from a central list somewhere?
Assuming that the main point is the fact that Bush vetoed the spending bill, let's not lose sight of the fact that both sides are playing politics here. The Democrats attached the supplemental spending precisely to have this bill vetoed, following the logic CC himself advocated many moons ago: do nothing to allow Bush to avoid full responsibility for the war. If a Democrat-controlled Congress pulls the U.S. out of Iraq, they take the heat, the last ones holding the bag, as it were. As for Bush, using the veto allows him to be seen standing firm, staying the course. I'm sure both sides feel they came out on top here.
"I'm sure both sides feel they came out on top here."
Maybe both of the US political parties feel that way, but the "two sides"? Lets look at the possible two sides to this in actual terms:
US public vs Iraqi public: Well, the US public is for a troop withdrawal, so they lose. The Iraqi's are for the same (last poll I saw), so they lose.
US troops vs Iraqi insurgents: The US troops now have no guaranteed funding in the relatively near future. I can't see how being used as a political ploy (back and forth "you hate the troops" politics) helps them. Add to that the likelihood of a "last minute" deal that will leave them hanging until the last possible moments - can this do anything but hurt troop morale? Iraqi insurgents: hey, they can now continue the civil war under the pretense of fighting the invaders, and have an enemy with an unclear future. They may have to continue doing so forever though. So lose for US troops, win/lose for Iraqi insurgents.
Sunni vs Shiite Iraqi civil war: No one wins this one in the near future, no matter what the US does. No win vs No win?
"The US troops now have no guaranteed funding in the relatively near future"
Whoa, did I miss a secret memo? You mean to say that the U.S. is now going to halt all military spending?
"Lovely rhetoric, man, absolutely stirring. But you are a performer, aren't you?"
indeed gram, i am a performer. does that somehow minimize the point? st. ronald of reagan was also a performer, politics and public communication is all performance. i'm also a waiter do i get extra points for being a service industry wage slave between gigs?
"...we are left with yet another ho-hum anti-Bush screed, regurgitating all the usual items. Do you get these from a central list somewhere?"
leaving your contradictions aside, i think you've missed the central point of my screed. no matter who pulls the plug on the occupation, the troops and the iraqis will be the ones that pay the final price. politics is politics and both sides are fighting dirty.
"The Democrats attached the supplemental spending precisely to have this bill vetoed, following the logic CC himself advocated many moons ago: do nothing to allow Bush to avoid full responsibility for the war."
regardless of literary allusions, bush owns this war. it is his responsibility as commander in chief, as president and decider. he wanted it, he's run it and that's where the buck has to stop. if the democrats and an increasing number of republicans are trying to end it, there is certainly an element of political opportunism at work. even so, the november elections sent a message to washington, the american public wants it to end as well.
this was a fight that didn't need to be fought. this was a war of choice. as for my central list, those are just the facts of the matter. this sad and deadly farce has to end at some point and somebody has to pull the plug. it's pretty obvious that bush isn't interested in making the call. and even after that call is finally made it will have a huge cost in lives and treasure. nobody wins but someone has to have the guts to decide to stop losing.
i think your assessment is a little shake. if the congress presses the issue and forces a withdrawal they'll take heat from the same folks that would oppose them anyway but i suspect that they'll be seen by the public as the ones that brough the kids home. bush's stubborn pose will likely be seen as pettiness and denial in the face of the facts and the public will.
so tell us gram, what's the winning strategy? what's your plan? do you stay or do you go?
If a Democrat-controlled Congress pulls the U.S. out of Iraq, they take the heat, the last ones holding the bag, as it were.
As I understand it, the only authority Congress has to end the war is by stipulating an end to funding. Attaching the pullout clause to a spending bill is the way they pull the U.S. out of Iraq - they can't simply order it to happen.
And nobody has come out on top, because this isn't over. Somewhere along the line, some spending bill has to pass or there really will be no more money.
"st. ronald of reagan"
that sounds familiar....
http://kevinswoodshed.blogspot.com/2007/04/bulletproof-neocons-john-derbyshire-has.html
should I be like skippy of "blogosphere" fame and insist on receiving credit or simply bask in reflected glory?
ladies and gentlemen, i just went back and reread the rev's post, cited above. allow me to give credit where due, as i had read that post in its original. rev done did it first. him being all clever and such. well, if i'm going to swipe stuff (unconsciously, of course) at least i'm swiping it from the good guys. no need to go skippy on me rev, kudos to you and cheers.
PSA,
I truly do think your post was a stirring piece of writing; my remarks were meant in a complimentary fashion. We may disagree on content, but the form was top notch.
As for a winning strategy, I have only opinions. I think the U.S. has no choice but to stay. In its present state, Iraq is unable to govern itself without outside help. Hussein was a strongman not unlike Tito in Yugoslavia, and was able to keep opposing factions at bay through fear and repression; his removal has left a void not yet filled. Those who learned to plot in secret while he was in power are not afraid to act against people with strict rules of engagement; actions to which Hussein would reply with slaughter are met with increased patrols by the Americans.
I am not one of those who will deny that the U.S. has botched this war, nor will I make excuses for poor decisions: it should have been fought differently. From the very beginning, the Americans should have demonstrated overwhelming force and the will to use it. They did not do so, and now are paying the price. To leave now would merely reinforce the opinion that the Americans do not have the stomach, nor the attention span, to finish what they start. Such was the opinion of Bin Laden after Somalia, if we may take him at his word, and I do not see this as changing such a view. Is is too late to do it over? I guess we'll see.
Adam,
My comment about the Democrats pulling the U.S. out of the war was not meant to imply any constitutional ability to do so, I was referring to public perception and Bush's ability to say his hands were tied by Congress. These types of manoeuvres were addressed by CC in previous days, and I saw this as a decent example of his earlier thoughts.
ok gram, fair enough and thanks for the compliment. i still contend that they were entirely wrong to enter iraq in the first place and i believe that the unravelling of their rationale(s) has proven that. while it is true that saddam ruled by fear and intimidation, it is also true that during his regime there was little in the way of sectarian division and violence. go back and read riverbend's archives to get a sense of what was lost. despicable as saddam was, iraq was a sectarian country. they had the best educated populace in the region and by regional standards were downright socially progressive.
there are no good choices to be made here but the continued occupation will not make things better. as a hypothetical, what happens if bush does blink and america prepares to evacuate? my guess is there will be a short term chaos as factions fight for position. what seems most likely to me is that sadr will solidify his position and take the role of strongman. he has popular support and has shown an ability to be restrained, when necessary. he has also shown an ability to exert discipline over his forces.
a continued american presence will serve only to keep the fires of violence burning. the surge has done little but put more targets on the field. bush's failure at and disinterest in a political and diplomatic solution is not helping. if iraq is to determine it's own future, america has to step back and allow the process to unfold. the longer they remain, the more despised they will become and the more difficult it will be to extract their forces.
as for bin laden, if america had left iraq alone, a mere fraction of the treasure and lives lost in iraq would likely have been sufficient to strip the taliban of influence, capture bin laden and remake afghanistan as the shining example that iraq was supposed to be. as it stands, the bush ego has plunged both nations into a cauldron of blood and instability.
Feel free to use St. Ronald of Reagan to you're heart's content - I'd even trade it to you for the phrase "Canada's Lowest Common Dominatrix" That one is pure snark poetry.
As far a the ongoing bloody clusterfuck that is Iraq is concerned, no one can unring that bell. The invasion was a hideous mistake and the occupation has been a series of hideous mistakes. This isn't Hollywood and there will be no happy ending, in fact at this point in time it doesn't look like there will be any ending to the slaughter at all as long as their are enough Iraqis left to shoot at each other. I don't think America staying another year (or two or ten) or leaving tomorrow is going to make much difference -- Iraq is broken and will stay broken until the Iraqi fix it. The UN could help them, but in the end the Iraqis have to solve their own political problems. I don't think there is much argument about who broke Iraq - pundits can argue about whether George broke it open because he though it was full of candy or WMDs or whatever, or whether his national security bozos knocked it off the mantlepiece while chasing Osama bin Laden around the living room. It doesn't really matter who broke it at the moment, what matters is how we can all help to fix the damn thing.
Post a Comment