Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Our Troops Are Dying For The Iraqi Regime To Get On With Their Politics

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 03:43 PM
Original message
Our Troops Are Dying For The Iraqi Regime To Get On With Their Politics
"It ''remains to be seen where we'll be in September.'' --Defense Secretary Gates, June 15, 2007


George Bush said yesterday, in a desperate defense of his escalating fiasco, that pulling out of Iraq "would be a disaster."

"Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East," Bush told reporters. "Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying."

The "job" that Bush says he wants "done" before he will agree to end the occupation and recent siege of Iraqi neighborhoods by our escalating forces, is a political pipe dream; a fantasy which relies on the prospect that some initiative or law which manages to pass through the fractured Iraqi legislature would somehow make the propped-up regime more secure, and end the struggle for power and territory which is raging between the myriads of factions and sects involved in Iraq's civil war.

The argument for keeping our troops in the middle of all of the chaos has been reduced to the same manufactured script which the Bush administration has used to justify every grab for the false authority they have assumed since the 9-11 attacks. In the rhetoric which followed the recent bombing of the shrine in Samarra, there was the usual bandying-about of their sophistry that it's al-Qaeda who has set the Shia and the Sunni against each other. Bush issued a written appeal to Iraqis to "avoid acts of vengeance" in the wake of the shrine bombings. Al-Qaeda, he said, "is trying to "sow hatred" among Iraqis, and he called on them to join him in the fight against Iraq's "true enemies."

However, there was no recognition at all from Bush of the decades of animosity between the dozens of Iraqi factions; no recognition of the destabilizing effect of the invasion and overthrow of the U.S. supported, Batthist sympathizer Saddam; no acknowledgment of the repressive effect of the U.S. forces acting along with the Shiite-dominated regime as they operate against communities in opposition to their skewed authority. Bush wants Iraqis to imitate him in his elevation of those in Iraq who've taken on the moniker of the 9-11 suspects he's let run free for five years in Afghanistan, to the position of a universal 'enemy' on which to divert their anger at our own devastating theft and destruction of their country.

As if disregarding their own claims of al-Qaeda as the source of divisions in Iraq, the Bush administration also, desperately, wants us (and the Iraqis) to believe that there's something their Iraqi junta can do, politically, which would cause Iraqis to abandon their violent expressions of liberty and self-determination which our false authority regards as mere threats to their consolidation of power.

An 'oil law' and some form of 'Batthist reconciliation' are the initiatives which have been presented by the administration as critical to their declaring some sort of 'success' in their increased occupation. Defense Secretary Gates sneaked into Iraq today to try and goad the vacationing Iraqi regime into getting on with the two political goals that Bush claims would end the violent struggles for power if enacted. Gates said in a statement he would tell the Iraqi regime that, " . . . our troops are buying them time to pursue reconciliation, that frankly we are disappointed with the progress so far."

It's not the first time that representatives from the Bush cabal have traveled to Baghdad to cluck their tongues in disappointment and disgust at the inability or unwillingness of the Iraqi government to enact these two initiatives which would, somehow, magically transform all of the resistance into a Kumbaya moment of surrender to the new regime's U.S.-enabled authority over them.

Behind the admonitions of Defense chief Gates stand 160,000 U.S. troops who, he announced, represent the completion of the 'surge' of the additional 30,000 Bush has ordered deployed into the middle of Iraq's civil war-zone. "Buying time" is the euphemism Gates used to describe the sacrifices of American military in defense of the new Iraqi regime, who have lost over 3500 soldiers since the invasion, and, last month, suffered the third worst period for U.S. military deaths, totaling 126 killed. And, both Gates and his commander, Bush, have forecast an even greater loss of American lives, admittedly a direct result of the escalation of forces.

The "disaster" Bush is warning of, which he says would come about if we withdrew from Iraq - a disaster, which is the perfect description of his fiasco so far - has already befallen our troops, and by extension, our own national interest. It is an amazing tragedy that the president and his party are so willing to sacrifice American lives for their politics; packing our nation's defenders into the middle of an active civil war, waiting for some political maneuvering from their junta to take place before they agree to bring them home.

If their justification for the continued deployment is about our national security, then they've failed Iraq, and our nation as well, as the destabilizing presence of our forces is the most pernicious influence - cited by his own intelligence agencies - fueling "jihad," and drawing even more Iraqis and others to engage in violent resistance to the increased U.S. occupation. If there is a universal enemy in Iraq, as Bush would like us to regard 'al-Qaeda,' it is our own muckraking military force. Even as Iraqis take up arms against the foreign influence of those associating themselves with the fugitive 9-11 suspects, they are also united against the obvious intrusion of our own invading army.

It's a wonder to hear Gates threatening the Iraqi regime with the prospected deaths of our soldiers, as if Iraqis actually cared to notice the 3500 Americans killed among the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost in the chaos. All of the 'reinforcements' Bush and his generals claimed were needed for their 'success' are now in place in Iraq. Now that the depth of their hollow lie about the 'stabilizing' effect of that escalation is apparent, the Bush cabal is desperate to delay the judgment of the 'success' of their costly deployment.

However, the premise behind the escalation was a false one; cobbled from the verdict of the Iraq Study Group who warned about taking their call for a 'temporary surge' of forces in isolation from the entirety of recommendations in their report. The predictable effect of Bush's swaggering escalation has been a standard reaction to a bully pushing his weight around in a rival's home-turf. Bush presumed that the mere intimidation of 160,000 U.S. troops ensconced in Iraqi neighborhoods would cause the country of millions to fold and bend to his militaristic imperialism. Instead, his escalation of U.S. forces has resulted in an obligatory increase in resistance. And, in the midst of it all, he wants his bully regime to press for 'reconciliation.'

He'd have a better chance of achieving 'reconciliation' by using our forces to dismantle the obstinate regime he's cynically created, and bring them out of Iraq along with our own beleaguered troops. If he could manage that, he'd have eliminated at least one of Iraq's enemies; maybe more than one if we're to accept that it's now their own propped-up puppets who are standing in the way of the political reforms the administration claims our troops are there to facilitate with their continued sacrifices.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. i thought they were fighting for our freedoms....
why do you hate america?

:evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. they're fighting for Bush's 'freedom agenda'
which, of course, has nothing at all to do with freedom, and everything to do with ignoring the will of the American people as he spreads his imperialism behind the continued sacrifices of our soldiers.

America the Beautiful . . .

America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. They didn't invite us, remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Iraq's unbreakable deadlock
Iraq's legislative deadlines are not being met by a hopelessly divided parliament, and Washington is getting frantic as US time and funds run out.

June 17, 2007

Furious at the demolition of the remaining two minarets of the Shia Askariya Mosque in Samarra on Wednesday, radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr instructed his followers in the Iraqi parliament to boycott the chamber and stay out until the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki promises to rebuild the mosque and strengthen security at all holy sites.

This is bad news for the Bush administration: it is keen to see the Iraqi legislature pass expeditiously crucial laws on oil, constitutional changes, and liberalising the de-Baathification policy - all geared to creating national reconciliation among Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. Even at the best of times parliamentary leaders have to struggle to ensure a quorum. With 30 Sadrist MPs abstaining in a house of 275, the chances of a quorate chamber is much reduced.

From Washington's viewpoint, the time frame is crucial too. The US Congress for the war in Iraq only until September and laid out legislative benchmarks for the Iraqi government on hydrocarbons, constitution and de-Baathification. With Baghdad drenched in searing heat in July and August, MPs are anxious to go on vacation, thus leaving White House officials fretting over the delay.

{snip}

While Congress and the White House wait anxiously for General David Petraeus's report on insurgency and sectarian violence in Iraq due in September, politicians and parliamentarians in Baghdad continue to operate at their own pace. And why should they not?

article: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dilip_hiro/2007/06/iraqs_unbreakable_deadlock.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. No, they are dying for Bush cronies' profit. Iraq has invited us to leave.
There is no fig leaf big enough to cover this crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. of course there's the profit
but the argument from Bush, his generals, and the rest of his cabal is that our soldiers are in Iraq to give the new regime 'room' to pass these two initiatives on oil and reconciliation. The entire notion is made completely absurd now that we have 160,00 troops in place and, according to Bush, waiting for the Iraqis to get on with those two little things they promised. The administration is staking the 'success' of their 'surge' on the prospect that Iraq will do these things and their own puppet regime is balking. But it's not as if those two measures would do anything at all to stop the violent, resistant struggle for power. So, in effect, our troops are still fighting and dying for some dubious political goal that the new regime doesn't even share.

Whatever profit the Bushies got out of Iraq is not what's keeping republicans and Bush from withdrawing. It's the prospect that they'll have to admit their venture was a failure for the very reasons they used to take us there and keep our troops bogged down there. If there's one thing Bush and his republicans are more concerned with than money, it's their political ego. And, their lies about Iraq have caught up with them. No more bluffing that more troops would produce anything Bush could call a 'success' out of his fiasco. The escalation is complete and all he and his generals have done is dig us even deeper into the muck.

Our troops are dying, waiting for the Iraqis to get on with their politics. But, we have absolutely no business in dictating to them what they should do politically. Especially not at the point of the weapons of our escalated occupation force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC