printAre there any limits to stupidity in politics? Not really.
Hearings on the war in Iraq this week saw Senator John McCain insist on, wait for it…more troops. Gen. John P. Abizaid, top American military commander in the Middle East, disagreed, although his innovation was to suggest that training the Iraqi military be made “more robust.” Yes, that’s right. All the Iraqis need is a bit more of what’s been worse than useless so far.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina followed McCain’s cues—he always does. And in such undazzling company, the Hildebeest dazzled. “I have heard over and over again, ‘the government must do this, the Iraqi Army must do that’,” warbot Clinton complained to Abizaid. “Can you offer us more than the hope that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army will step up to the task?”
When it comes to Iraq, the pols fetishize details, hang hopes on minutia and forfeit a deeper understanding of the place and people. The devil is not in the details—more troops, or better training for Iraqis—but in the big picture. The government of Iraq doesn’t stand apart from the governed; it reflects them.
The divisions that have riven the region for four millenniums are mirrored in the current government, and will continue to hobble every successive government that hunkers down in the Green Zone, where it’ll forever be forced to take cover, incapable of governing Baghdad, much less the rest of the country.
Let’s not hang Sadaam. Let’s give him a sponge bath, a hair cut and turn him loose to take over the country again. After he shots a few thousand political enemies and settles the place down again, he can become our ally again, the region can be stablized and we can try to figure out how to keep Iran from blowing up the world.
In short, what’s to do? The whole region nothing but chaos. The reason we can’t get it right over there is chaos, to us is chaotic, and to the denizens of the Middle East chaos is a way of life. Kind of like throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch.
I can’t wait to see tomorrow’s episode of this poorly written soap opera.
The Iraq War has become a Nietzschean nightmare, an eternal recurrence with no foreseeable reprieve in sight. To continue to mire in this madness is beyond folly. To what end? Bleed our troops dry and test their sanity with multiple combat tours? Saddle us with an ever burgeoning national debt we can never pay off? The only sensible solution is to get the (enter expletive here) out!
If we have already proven the absence of WMD, no prior connection to al-Qaida,
militant islam on all sides of a civil
war and no real reason for our being in the hell hole we created by sanctions and invasion, why don’t we just tuck our tails between our legs and get out as soon as we can arrange secure transportation for our troops?
I think it was Colin Powell who told Bush before he moved on Iraq that “if you break it, you own it”. That has been pretty much my position from the start. I don’t have much of a problem with a well thought out strategic action and based on the best intelligence, it was not an unreasonable thing. A closed society like Saddam’s Iraq is a very tough thing to get good human intelligence in. Add to this that the Administration knew of the UN’s corruption and the CIA’s political machinations.
Where I fault the Administration is in thinking the inhabitants would conduct themselves like 20th Century Belgians instead of the 7th Century muslim barbarians that they are. These people received the greatest gift that any oppressed people could ever recieve. A vicious tyrant was removed and they were given an opportunity to become the most advanced and prosperous country in the region. Their response was to act like the murdering animals that they are. If they don’t get with the program soon, we had best pack it up and let them eat each other.
[Some gift horse! the iraqis did not ask for america’s coercive favors. Let those who supported this crime/invasion not turn the tables and blame the victims of the aggression. Not on this blog.]
They may not have asked for it in 2003–actually they did ask for help in 1994 but we ignored them resulting in Saddam being able to identify and eliminate his opposition–but they got it. I don’t think it can be argued that our removing Saddam could have been a great opportunity for the Iraquis.
The previous commenter was mistaken on ”the Iraqi people” asking us for help in 1994. First, it was 1991 and their ”ask for help” was in response to Bush 41’s call ”for the Iraqi people to rise up against saddam.” They did, and saddam put that potential revolution down the way ALL dictators do: By whatever means nessessary.
By 2003 ”the Iraqi people” were rightfully quite skeptical of US claims ”to liberate them”.
Today, outside of ”Kurdistan,” Iraq is anarchy. This will only resolve itself either from an outside force ruling as a despot (the syrian occupation of Lebanon is a prime example), or the most ruthless ”order bringer” fighting his way to the top and consolidating power (as saddam did and will not be able to do again). And that is what will happen in Iraq again with or without the presence of ”our troops” there.
That’s why I openly advocate that at least 100,000 of ”our troops” return home in time to be with their families for Thanksgiving or Christmas at the latest…