This 'Winning' Thing
Every time I hear Bush or one of his cronies go on about the only way to win in Iraq is not to cut and run, I yearn to hear the simple question from somebody, anybody -- win WHAT?
What are we still fighting to win in Iraq?
After all, we went there to sever Saddam from his fearsome Weapons of Mass Deception. Unless he's hiding a nuke under his cell bunk, that's no longer a problem.
Then the mission somehow evolved beyond the original mandate: spend billions of tax dollars forcing democracy on this ethnically divided country. Nobody I know got to vote on this fool's mission disguised as a noble social experiment by which to bring Pollyanna peace to the entire Middle East. It was decided for us by The Decider. And sold to us by a media that did no homework, or at least failed to turn it in.
Well, we spent the money, and Bush boosters have received a nice return on their investment. Iraq has its own government as promised. Whoop-tee-do. Their predictable ethnic civil war resulted just as everyone who doesn't watch Fox News knew it would, but so what? It's not our civil war, it's theirs. How the hell are we supposed to win another country's civil war?
As for the War on Terror, spin it how you will, that's a separate issue. It began years before Iraq, and no less an authority than Supreme Commander George W. Bush himself assures us that it will continue for decades. If we confuse these two separate wars as some seemed determined to do, we'll be in Iraq until the last drop of oil runs out. ...Ahem....
So exactly what is it that we must win in Iraq? If the mission wasn't accomplished when Saddam was caught, tried and convicted, if it wasn't accomplished when the first elections were held, if it hasn't been accomplished in an occupation longer than it took us to win World War II, exactly when will it be accomplished?
Must we stay there and help build an Iraqi army stronger than Saddam's to deal with the civil uprising? Then how do we assure that some general doesn't pull a Saddam and put us right back where we started? By staying there until, ahem, the last drop of oil runs out?
An unending civil war is now the excuse for an unending occupation. A cynic might suggest that was the plan from the beginning.
Please, somebody, ask the relevant question. What are we fighting to win in Iraq?
If winning means we continue to bleed away young lives until there's none of that lucrative lubricant left, who the hell has won?
What are we still fighting to win in Iraq?
After all, we went there to sever Saddam from his fearsome Weapons of Mass Deception. Unless he's hiding a nuke under his cell bunk, that's no longer a problem.
Then the mission somehow evolved beyond the original mandate: spend billions of tax dollars forcing democracy on this ethnically divided country. Nobody I know got to vote on this fool's mission disguised as a noble social experiment by which to bring Pollyanna peace to the entire Middle East. It was decided for us by The Decider. And sold to us by a media that did no homework, or at least failed to turn it in.
Well, we spent the money, and Bush boosters have received a nice return on their investment. Iraq has its own government as promised. Whoop-tee-do. Their predictable ethnic civil war resulted just as everyone who doesn't watch Fox News knew it would, but so what? It's not our civil war, it's theirs. How the hell are we supposed to win another country's civil war?
As for the War on Terror, spin it how you will, that's a separate issue. It began years before Iraq, and no less an authority than Supreme Commander George W. Bush himself assures us that it will continue for decades. If we confuse these two separate wars as some seemed determined to do, we'll be in Iraq until the last drop of oil runs out. ...Ahem....
So exactly what is it that we must win in Iraq? If the mission wasn't accomplished when Saddam was caught, tried and convicted, if it wasn't accomplished when the first elections were held, if it hasn't been accomplished in an occupation longer than it took us to win World War II, exactly when will it be accomplished?
Must we stay there and help build an Iraqi army stronger than Saddam's to deal with the civil uprising? Then how do we assure that some general doesn't pull a Saddam and put us right back where we started? By staying there until, ahem, the last drop of oil runs out?
An unending civil war is now the excuse for an unending occupation. A cynic might suggest that was the plan from the beginning.
Please, somebody, ask the relevant question. What are we fighting to win in Iraq?
If winning means we continue to bleed away young lives until there's none of that lucrative lubricant left, who the hell has won?
posted by Bear at 8:42 AM
0 comments
