Hat tip to KibbutzAmiad for a comment made a few days ago which is one of the best I have seen. This whole nonsense (which I also pointed out the hypocrisy of the “temporary nature” of the escalation) about the United States not being able to withdraw from Iraq because “the terrorists will just wait us out until we leave” has gotten to be beyond stupid.
Here is the thing, which I reiterated on this past week’s FrameWork:
The Iraqis live in Iraq. The Sunni insurgents, the Shiite militia, al Sadr and the other factions of government who we may not hold in “high regard”. It is their country. And unless we plan on OCCUPYING the country forever, they will “technically” wait us out – if we leave next week, next month, next year, in 10 years, 100 years or 200 years.
This isn’t a “should we or shouldn’t we withdraw” issue. It is a question of HOW and WHEN. This is a country with a government that is barely functioning and that is not trusted. And we are STILL hearing this blathering nonsense. From Cheney:
“It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region,” Cheney said. “Instead, it sends a message to our enemies that the calendar is their friend, that all they have to do is wait us out — wait for the date certain, and then claim victory the day after.”
From Bush:
It has become a standard part of George W. Bush’s litany for why he will veto a congressional plan for setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq: “Why would you say to the enemy, ‘Here’s a timetable. Just go ahead and wait us out?’”
From Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee:
On Iraq, he said if America pulls out now, the country will lose credibility, and it will tell the terrorists “they don’t have to beat us, they just have to out wait us.”
To them, and to all the others who make these stupid statements, all I can say is “BULLSHIT”!!
It is disingenuous and completely irresponsible to talk like this without thinking past talking points, catchphrases and other pandering statements. We HAVE to get out. Sometime. Sooner rather than later. Not as soon as we want, but pretty damn soon. To think ANYTHING otherwise is doing a complete disservice to our troops, the Iraqis, America and the rest of the world. NOBODY should be in a leadership position if they take this dangerous stance.
Getting out hastily will be ugly. But our continued occupation is a root cause of much (not all, but much) of the violence. As thereisnospoon said the other day, if we leave Iraq, people like al Sadr and the Iraqi government will have to start governing. Just like Hamas – when they were elected to power, they had to stop using Israel as the excuse for all of the damage, destruction and start to govern – otherwise they wouldn’t be in charge anymore. Now, there is still violence there, but it is a good basic example.
The debate must keep changing – the Overton Window must continue to be pushed. Talk needs to be about HOW we get out, and what needs to be done in conjunction with a withdrawal.
Obviously there are many things – as I have previously said, there are many things that must be included in any serious plan:
For starters, you need to:
- engage with Iran and Syria;
- have peacekeeping troops or some presence (NATO/UN?) to help with humanitarian issues;
- negotiate with Iraqis (al Sadr, etc.) to make sure that our troops can withdraw without being targeted (as much as possible);
- logistics of getting the equipment out;
- involve Saudis, Pakistan, Turkey, and Europe to figure out how to rebuild and make everyone have some benefit and skin in the game; and
- restart all Iraqi state run businesses. This will cost around $150 Million and will get hundreds of thousands back to work immediately.
But this talk about justifying staying in Iraq indefinitely and not withdrawing has GOT to stop. The people who continue to speak these lies and this nonsense need to be called to the carpet as lacking foresight, not being realistic and being disingenuous liars.
It is their goddamn country. They can wait us out forever.
also in orange
Bush doesn’t want to stay in Iraq forever, only until all their oil is gone.
The problem, Steven, is that that time horizon is about to expand dramatically:
The reserves may be almost double of previous estimates.
At current estimate reserves (116 billion bbls) and production 2 million bbls/day, it would take about 160 years to drain the fields. Even if Iraq manages the objective of doubling the production to 4 million bbls/day – it would take a couple of generations.
And it never will be.
The only way to really stamp out the insurgency would be to win hearts and minds.
However, I don’t think the Bushies are interested in calming things down in Iraq.
As long as Iraq is in turmoil, they have an excuse for keeping US troops there.
Oh, and by the way, there’s this:
There’s literally one trillion dollars worth of proven oil reserves in Iraq. The U.S. will withdraw its troops when the last well runs dry. Not before. It doesn’t matter if the next President’s name is McCain, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, or the Mysterious Mister X.
We have a colony in Iraq for the next 30 years. Blood for oil. Get used to it.
Well, at least the ever-bloodthirsty U.S. Marines will get the chance to slaughter a whole bunch more innocent civilians. When they come home suffering from PTSD, those same folks may go on Virginia Tech-style rampages.
Oh brave new world that has such people in it….
.
TAMPA April 19 – “The Long War,” a phrase coined by former U.S. Central Command chief John Abizaid to convey the time needed to defeat the religious extremism fueling al-Qaida, has been jettisoned by his successor, Adm. William Fallon.
Fallon, who replaced Abizaid as Centcom’s top officer March 16, considered the term inconsistent with the goal of reducing the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, according to the command.
Fallon wants the focus to be on curbing the violence in Iraq and shifting responsibility for the country’s internal security to the Iraqis.
Referring to the broader battle as a lengthy ideological conflict distracted from the more immediate benchmarks and suggested there was no plan to leave the region, said Marine Corps Lt. Col. Matt McLaughlin, a command spokesman.
“The change in vernacular is a product of our ongoing effort to use language that describes the conflict for our western audience while understanding the cultural implications of how that language is construed in the Middle East,” McLaughlin wrote in an e-mail.
“In this case, the idea that we are going to be involved in a ‘Long War,’ at the current level of operations, is not likely and unhelpful,” McLaughlin said. “We remain committed to our friends and allies in the region and to countering al-Qaida inspired extremism where it manifests itself. But one of our goals is to lessen our presence over time, [and] we didn’t feel that the term ‘Long War’ captured this nuance.”
Therefore we’ll be guests in Iraq for a ‘Long Time’.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."In my mind this ranks right up there with the empty phrase “We have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here,” as if American troops were some kind of magnet that would automatically draw “terrorists” to them, or as if this were trench warfare and we could keep ourselves “safe” by holding an imaginary Maginot Line somewhere in the desert.
As we tragically saw earlier this week, there’s no such thing as “safe.” It’s very, very hard to stop a determined wacko from wreaking destruction. All we can do is be alert, be prepared, and remember that eternal vigilance — not the surrender of our rights — is the price of liberty.
…as if American troops were some kind of magnet that would automatically draw “terrorists” to them…
since there weren’t, for all intents and purposes, any there when we started.
a self fulfilling prophecy, unlike wmd’s
not quite what BushCo™ had in mind….or, maybe part of the plan…
Yes, but it’s an imperfect analogy, because the “terrorists,” unlike iron filings drawn to a magnet, are not required to stick around and fight us. There’s nothing keeping them from going somewhere else and causing problems.
That’s not what bothers me, though. What really bothers me — and I’m sure I’ve said this many times before — is that we have domestic terrorists around this country sending anthrax through the mail, bombing abortion clinics, and even doing non-lethal acts of intimidation like picketing the funerals of servicemen. And yet we are worried about swarthy furriners. And yet we are doing, so far as I can tell, zip about them (at least compared to hunting down boojums outside our borders).
agreed….guess l should’ve added a <snark> tag
Sorry, my snark detector needs some percussive adjustment. {thwack!}