... To fully understand where we are headed in Iraq, we have to understand where we have been. In just over two-and-a-half years, much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, the drafting of and ratification of a permanent constitution, introduction of a sound currency, the equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.There are so many errors in her letter, and it all begins with her statement, "To fully understand where we are headed in Iraq, we have to understand where we have been." In fact, Rep. Schmidt has no interest in understanding where we have been. U.S. history with Iraq, as far as she is concerned, appears to go back no further than our invasion; perhaps we might, by extension, take a date as early as Sept. 11, 2001 (though any references suggested are false, ie, a lie), but there is no indication in her e-mail to suggest looking earlier. This is not history; this does not begin to cover "where we have been" with Iraq, nor does it do any justice to the experience of Iraqis themselves.
...
Some have suggested pulling our troops out of Iraq. But pulling out our troops before they have achieved their goal is not a plan for victory.
...
Our troops have not failed us. We must not fail them.
Her list of accomplishments is laughable. Let's consider:
1) The removal of Saddam's tyranny. Hey, we helped the guy get started, we supplied him with money and weapons, we turned a blind eye to his tyranny until it was no longer politically convenient. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been removed; I'm saying we never should have helped lift him to power in the first place. The lesson we would learn should we actually take the time to look at "where we have been" would be to stop propping up and supporting dictators like Saddam in the first place.
2) Negotiation of an interim constitution. This one was really pretty easy. We allowed for the appearance of actual constitution haggling to take place while certain award-winning appointees simply worked up whatever they wanted in secret, forcing through all sorts of rules that allowed the US to maintain control even after the hastily staged "hand-over" of power. If we honestly evaluated "where we have been," we would see that this behind the scenes manipulation only increased anger and resentment at US occupation and revealed the hand over as a sham.
3) Restoration of full sovereignty. This is just absurd. If the Iraqi's have full sovereignty, what are we still doing there? If "training forces" is the answer, what's taking so long? In fact, looking at "where we have been," we see that there is no intention to restore full sovereignty; at least, not until we can prop up another puppet / rabidly-pro-US government in Iraq.
4) Holding of free national elections. Sure, the people were free to come and vote. In their first election, when they voted for candidates who would have among their responsibilities the drafting of a Constitution, they couldn't vote for individuals at all but rather party slates. Often, the people who were on those slates weren't even known and when they were, their names were released just days prior to the election. A look at "where we have been" shows that we've been busy re-defining elections, electoral processes, and democracy itself.
5) Formation of an elected government. I'm not even sure what this means; it sounds the same as #4, she's just trying to take credit for it twice. Or does Schmidt mean that not only did we allow people to go to the polls and vote for mystery candidates and people to be appointed later, but we also made a building safe enough for these people, once elected/appointed, to show up (with a small number killed when they tried to get there)?
6) The drafting of and ratification of a permanent constitution. In fact, this constitution is far from permanent. There were so many disputes over its provisions, and the threat of it failing by popular vote so strong, that in the closing hours a provision was written in that allows for changes to be made at a later date, once the referendum had been conducted. So Iraqi's were asked to vote on a constitution that, once approved, could be changed markedly. Why not just ask them to vote on a blank piece of paper, on which they are promised that lots of good things will be written? If we look at "where we have been," a sad pattern begins to emerge: apparently, US leadership (read: the Bush Administration, neocons, the Republicans base, and lackeys like Jean Schmidt) is more concerned with going through the motions than with actually accomplishing anything.
7) Introduction of a sound currency. She must be referring to the influx of US dollars which have been drained from our own treasury and poured into Iraq in mismanagement and bribes, the billions that cannot be accounted for, that have been funneled to friends of Bush and anyone willing to cook up stories that Bush & company like to hear. (The latest news on that front: we've been buying propaganda in Iraqi newspapers, discrediting yet another foundation of so-called free states, a free press.) On this issue, "where we've been" is on the side of waste, fraud, and abuse.
8) The equipping of Iraqi security forces. This would be a joke except it's far from funny. This is the only reason consistently stated for why we are still in Iraq, and the administration has been lieing about our success on this point from the beginning. Rumsfeld in particular has regularly inflated the numbers of Iraqi troops and police supposedly trained; in fact, we have yet to come close to the numbers that he was giving even two years ago. Even worse, it appears that much of this training is benefiting the insurgents who come to learn then use their training against us. An honest evaluation of "where we've been" ought to tell us pretty clearly that we need a smarter approach and, if this is truly our remaining goal in Iraq ("As Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down." - Pres. Bush), we ought to ask why we're not pouring more resources and effort into actually accomplishing this.
9) The increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation. Once again, this is a repeat - it's the same as #8. Is Schmidt just trying to inflate the list of accomplishments, or what?
The one task our leaders in Congress and in the White House / Bush administration should be doing constantly is looking at "where we have been," learning lessons from this war as it takes place, adjusting and adapting and fine tuning our efforts to end the war as quickly and easily as possible, including taking the least possible lives in the process. I had grave misgivings about the war from the start; it is hard to be a Christian and not be a pacifist. In fact, given Jesus' own statements about peace and reconciliation and his own example, the burden is on those who are not pacifist. It has long since been clear that the war in Iraq was begun on fraud, that Pres. Bush did not pursue all reasonable efforts before engaging in the war but in fact did the exact opposite: he made every effort possible to ensure support for a war that he had no intention of avoiding. Now he's created a mess and he seems not to care. He won't lay out a plan for victory because a victory would mean an end to the war. It is absolutely ridiculous to begin any project without an idea of what the goal is. Whether in business or in war, where there is no clearly articulated statement of success, there is no clear direction or purpose or activity. Instead, an environment is created where anything goes (torture, anyone?). Bush never met a business he couldn't fail at (without major Saudi money, anyway); it appears the same goes for war. Why won't he state the goal, clear and simple? Why won't he make plain what are the terms for victory? There can be only three reasons: 1) He has no idea. 2) He knows very clearly what his goal is and he knows that the public would never support it, so he lies and dissembles in order to play on public opinion. 3) He has no goal because he doesn't want the war to end.
And people like Jean Schmidt stand up and say things like, "...[P]ulling out our troops before they have achieved their goal is not a plan for victory." Please, Rep. Schmidt, tell me: What is their goal?
Support our troops, Rep. Schmidt? How about telling them the truth - like whether or not you support an end to this war, whether or not you actually want them to come home, whether or not you really care that they are being asked to risk and sacrifice their lives for what began as a fraud and appears to have no end in sight.
No comments:
Post a Comment