Withdrawal The Honest Way

Published on June 17, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

The symbolic gesture of thumbs down on a timetable for Iraqi withdrawal is logically consistent with Congress’ vote only the other day to appropriate almost another $100 billion for the war effort. If this rejection didn’t mean further sacrifice of our troops it would be comical that such things persist as staying the course, taking the war on terrorism off shore — which I suspect means substituting Iraqi civilian casualties for our own — or paving the way for democracy in the Middle East. The demagogic din of a timetable is but an insincere atonement for a war that makes as much machismo-sense as Gary Cooper sticking it our through high noon. As long as Congress continues to borrow to support tepidly the war financially, a timetable is dishonest. Besides, true withdrawal is a political- military decision predicated on ground conditions and since the violence is not subsiding, a timetable ignores the preconceived reality that without our troops conditions would be worse without considering that it could well be that troop presence is the primary cause.

The only honest way is for Congress to stop payment for the war but for the cost of bringing home the brave lock, stock and barrel by Labor Day.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

ParaTed2k

on Jun 17, 2006

The only honest way is for Congress to stop payment for the war but for the cost of bringing home the brave lock, stock and barrel by Labor Day.

True, any member of the House or Senate who claims to be for pulling out should be voting against funding to continue the war. That is the Constitutional check and balance given to Congress.

I have a question for you though. SInce the bacteria have not shown any interest in helping to build anything for Iraqis, what makes you think that the U.S. leaving will convince them to leave? I mean, the way I see it, if we leave them an incomplete government to topple, why wouldn't they do it? After all, wouldn't destroying the government friendly to the US be the logical next step?

bakerstreet

on Jun 17, 2006

"I have a question for you though. SInce the bacteria have not shown any interest in helping to build anything for Iraqis, what makes you think that the U.S. leaving will convince them to leave? "

Because once we leave the Iraqis will start running their nation like many others in the Middle East do, and the beheadings won't just be on one side. There's a reason there isn't an al Qaeda insurgency in Saudi Arabia. People of that bent tend to disappear.

Re: The cash, it should also be noted that there were other riders on it, like 20 billion (if i recall correctly) to line more pockets in the Katrina cash machine. It wouldn't surprise me if even more of it weren't being diverted here and there and everywhere.

You can't ignore the draw that bills like this have for those leeches that are looking for a nice fat host. Sure, billions to a war you don't agree with, but think of the millions you might be able to siphon off in the process.

singrdave

on Jun 17, 2006

There's a reason there isn't an al Qaeda insurgency in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia does have an al Qaeda problem, but it's quashed by strong leadership in the Saud royalty, whether perceived as legitimate or not. When the US leaves Iraq, who fills the void?

The newly emboldened insurgents (the ones who "drove the Americans out") would set up their own government... or do nothing at all, and chaos would reign.

We made this mess; we are obligated to clean it up.

Dr Guy

on Jun 17, 2006

Re: The cash, it should also be noted that there were other riders on it, like 20 billion (if i recall correctly) to line more pockets in the Katrina cash machine. It wouldn't surprise me if even more of it weren't being diverted here and there and everywhere.

Steven has a point, but you rightly point out the trap of the funding. These omnibus bills are a disgrace to congress, but I dont see them going away any time soon.

bakerstreet

on Jun 17, 2006

"
The newly emboldened insurgents (the ones who "drove the Americans out") would set up their own government... or do nothing at all, and chaos would reign."

Oh, I don't think it would be bloody and too the point. Any government they set up would last a day or two at best. People tolerate them because 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Once we're gone, they'll just be enemies, and if we've done our job and armed the right people well enough, it should play itself out.

stevendedalus

on Jun 20, 2006

We made this mess; we are obligated to clean it up.

Had the Iraqis accepted us with parades and flowers as the adminstration hoped, then there would be no mess. Iraqis brought it on themselves--they are responsible, not us. Besides stay cool as Baker suggests: the mideast is the mideast.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!