Do Bush and Cheney actually care about "winning" in Iraq?
I have asked this before, and will ask again: If Iraq is going to degenerate into a humanitarian catastrophe when we leave, why would the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to get out as soon as possible? Why do they think the violence would actually decrease? Shouldn't they be the first ones to want us to stay and keep the lid on? Here is what a report from a poll of the Iraqi public in September 2006 from World Public Opinion.org (September 2006) said:
It’s the threat of that catastrophe that Bush-Cheney use to (1) shore up the right wing with the threat that al-Qaeda would thrive in the “failed state,” and (2) disarm moderates and moderate liberals still fixated on Colin Powell’s “we broke it, we must fix it” premise – as if he is still some kind of moral authority.
Yet it’s the Iraqis who have the most to lose in a massive civil war, and it’s also the Iraqis who one would assume know their own country a lot better than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Secretary Gates and even the vaunted counter-intelligence guru General Petraeus.
When we defy not only the wishes of the American people but also the wishes of the Iraqis themselves, the ones we are supposedly saving who ask us to stop saving them, what conclusion jumps out immediately? That the majority of Iraqis are right: as far as Bush, Cheney et al are concerned, we are keeping our bases and staying there forever. They have a vested interest in not actually winning, but just keeping the conflict going and going and going. Isn’t it time the Democrats start challenging the president to answer these questions as part of the funding debate? Isn’t it also time to point out to the American people that we cannot achieve "victory" until we actually get out and let the Iraqis show they can take care of themselves without being propped up by the American military that is resented anyway as a non-Muslim Western occupation army?
An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. . . . Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.
It’s the threat of that catastrophe that Bush-Cheney use to (1) shore up the right wing with the threat that al-Qaeda would thrive in the “failed state,” and (2) disarm moderates and moderate liberals still fixated on Colin Powell’s “we broke it, we must fix it” premise – as if he is still some kind of moral authority.
Yet it’s the Iraqis who have the most to lose in a massive civil war, and it’s also the Iraqis who one would assume know their own country a lot better than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Secretary Gates and even the vaunted counter-intelligence guru General Petraeus.
When we defy not only the wishes of the American people but also the wishes of the Iraqis themselves, the ones we are supposedly saving who ask us to stop saving them, what conclusion jumps out immediately? That the majority of Iraqis are right: as far as Bush, Cheney et al are concerned, we are keeping our bases and staying there forever. They have a vested interest in not actually winning, but just keeping the conflict going and going and going. Isn’t it time the Democrats start challenging the president to answer these questions as part of the funding debate? Isn’t it also time to point out to the American people that we cannot achieve "victory" until we actually get out and let the Iraqis show they can take care of themselves without being propped up by the American military that is resented anyway as a non-Muslim Western occupation army?
posted by KISSWeb | 5:25 PM
1 Comments:
Good point. Would some of the pundits would pick up on it.hnmvpdw
Post a Comment
<< Home