Thursday, January 25, 2007

Why are we still there?

We invaded Iraq to take down a dictator and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Okay, the dictator’s gone and there were no weapons. So why are we still there? The Iraqi people have been liberated and some of them have chosen to go to war with their own countrymen. How does that involve us? We gave them the ability to make their own choices and they have. Wasn’t that what it was all about?

There are some who say we should bomb the whole country. Seems an unusual thing to do to the very people we were so concerned about four years ago. As bad as things might have been under Saddam’s rule, even that would be better than being blown to smithereens. I’m fairly sure a lot of Iraqis would agree.

So we are still there and still fighting? Who exactly are our soldiers fighting? Are they fighting the people who are killing Sunnis or the people who are killing Shiites? Seems to me if you don’t know who the enemy is or why they are fighting you, it might be time to reassess the situation.

At the end of most wars, one side surrenders to the other and a winner is declared. If the US wins this war, who will surrender to us? How will we know we have won? We are told it will be when Iraq can defend itself. Are they not now defending themselves from the US? If our army and theirs cannot quell the violence, how will they ever be able to do it alone?

Since this war is not a game and the outcome cannot be decided by a score, it would appear there can be no winners. There have been scores of deaths and tragedies but no one has won. The longer we stay, the more we lose. At this point I would say it’s time to come home.


Blogger Peacechick Mary said...

You just wrote the perfect definition of a quagmire. Bush has rammed this country hip deep into a quagmire. What you are saying also supports what Reps and Senators would say if they didn't couch everything in politics. You have spoken the point-blank truth. It is way past time to pull military troops out. I say, they do it now or forever regret.

January 25, 2007 4:01 AM  
Blogger Coffee Messiah said...

Sen. Hegel, somehow through the Libby trial, inimated that GW, on his declaration to war,
wrote nothing concrete on Iraq. Sounded as if he wanted open season on the middle east.
Assuming, that once in Iraq, it qould have been so easy, that the domino effect would occur through
the region.
Was on Olberman last evening. ; (
Uh, out now both in Iraq and all the Bush people!

January 25, 2007 4:50 AM  
Blogger White Square said...

Wish You a very Happy New Year 2007!

January 25, 2007 5:25 AM  
Blogger Spadoman said...

PoP.... we're all asking the same questions. Barbara Boxer said it best as I've heard it last night on Democracy Now. It is time for "we" politicians to stop worrying about re-election and stand up and do something.

The mission is to drive around and get shot at. There is no other mission. The factions are fighting because there is no Saddam Hussein's army to quell the violence like there was when he was in power.

The Itaqi people must do this tehmselves. America;s responsibility is to pay the damages and rebuild infrastructure.

January 25, 2007 5:39 AM  
Blogger BBC said...

*Looks out window*

Nope, no war in my block. Those monkeys must be fighting each other somewhere else.

Okay, I'm done worrying about it then.

January 25, 2007 6:13 AM  
Blogger SB Gypsy said...

I'm with you, POP! It's time to get out of there, and stop killing people we don't even know, who don't know why we're there in the first place.

January 25, 2007 6:14 AM  
Blogger fallenmonk said...

"Since this war is not a game and the outcome cannot be decided by a score, it would appear there can be no winners."
That pretty much sums up the whole situation PoP.

January 25, 2007 6:21 AM  
Blogger Pogo said...

PoP, you are asking the questions that would naturally follow had the reasons for our going into Iraq been honestly reflected in what our leaders (and I use that word advisedly). If we had gone into Iraq to 1. topple Hussein or 2. get rid of WMD, we would have won the war and could have declared victory and left. But we were actually there to establish a democratic beach head in the midst of countries run as Islamic dictatorships, which our leaders were too dishonest to tell us as we ramped up our invasion (because we never would have supported such an effort) and now set as the goal line for victory. Therein lies the rub. The country we are attempting to establish such a beach head in has a population, the majority of which by virtue of its religion, has more in common with the people in the Islamic dictatorships in the region than with any democratic groups elsewhere. Ya see, since we love freedom, and we are the true followers of the true god, our love for democracy is right and true, and if shown to (or in this case, imposed upon) other peoples who do not follow our god or enjoy our democratic way of life, they too will see the light and follow our lead to a sustaining and growing democracy among the Islamists. Of course there is always the possibility that even freed from the tyranny of a Saddam, for instance, the Islamic population may have a differnt idea, begin to push back against our efforts through an organized insurgency, and plunge their country into sectarian violence that neither we not the government we helped them install is capable of stopping through a post war occupation. I'm not saying that is happening, but it's a possibility.

January 25, 2007 6:24 AM  
Blogger DivaJood said...

Barbara Boxer's comment sums up what is wrong with our elected officials: they are always worried about getting re-elected, about keeping their jobs rather than actually DOING their jobs. And now their job is to bring our troops home from Iraq, and, I would suggest, Afghanistan.

January 25, 2007 7:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only issue is that this is analogy of starting the forest fire...trying to put it out with gasoline...and then saying "Oh I'm tired of this...and I burnt my fingers (WHINE) so i'll go home."

There are some proposals for goals to aid in partitioning Iraq to settle the sectarian violence and to-th-death struggle for the All-or-nothing control of a supposed Central-Unity- Government.

I think personally those altered goals offer the best option with the least cost in US and Iraqi lives to actually HELP fix the mess GW has fomented in that country. But it required changing goals and admitting the orginal goal (and Iraqi Govt) is a failure...which BUSH will NEVER admit. And so it's a post today on part of that idea.

January 25, 2007 8:08 AM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

Hidden agenda, anyone? This is all a part of Cheney & Bush 41's New World Order. See this film:


January 25, 2007 8:31 AM  
Blogger FreakyNick said...

The difference between success and failure in Iraq has become very fuzzy? What will we accomplish with "success", how is that different from the failure that is happening now? If we "lose" the war, the only damage is to some people's pride. Was one of our objectives to prevent the Civil War that our advisor's to Leader Dearest predicted? Haven't we already accomplished our objectives "successfully"?

Humility is a Christian virtue, right? Leader Dearest, do the Christian thing, since you don't have a handle this reality concept yet.

January 25, 2007 8:42 AM  
Blogger eProf2 said...


You're certainly back from the flu. I think you've exposed the skeleton of public reasons for the war; however, Pogo has put the flesh and muscle on the private reasons for the invasion, war, and long-term occupation plans of Bushco. According to the interview with Sen Hagel in GQ magazine, the original war authorization to the Congress by Bushco was for the "middle east" not just Iraq. The neo-cons had big, big plans for the US to use its superpowers to literally conquer the world. See the Project for the New American Century published in 1999 by the likes of Wolfowitz, Perleman, Kristol,and the rest of the neo-cons. They shouldn't be called neo-cons, but neo-Nazis with American weaponry and institutions as they see fit to use for their goals of world-wide domination.

January 25, 2007 8:53 AM  
Blogger PoliShifter said...

We are still there for the oil and the arms deals.

A U.S. consulting firm in Iraq drew up legislation that would give 75% of Iraq's oil profits to Chevron, BP, Exxon, and Shell (All U.S. and U.K. companies)

Also, there's just sooo much money to be made by contractors, arms dealers, and all other types of nepharious black market activities.

There is no reason to stay except to squeeze as many more dollars out as possible for the American People demand an immediate exit.

All BushCo is doing is just punting it down the road as they have been for over 3 years. All Bush wants to do is get out of office with the U.S. STILL in Iraq. That's his goal.

See Blood For Oil

January 25, 2007 10:52 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

I would beg to say that there are never true winners in war. Those who are perceived as victors have the eternal images of their victims' lives ebbing away at their brutality...

January 25, 2007 11:21 AM  
Blogger Human said...

Speaking of coming home - For Faiza

polishifter said what Iwasa gonna, but better.

Spadoman - Are you sure it wasn't Rep. Maxine Waters who said that? The audio would not play for me in total on the 'watch/listen" link yesterday. Same thing today, but this time I called them(about 4 hours ago) and it now works.
I clicked on the "Listen" button earlier and that worked fine. The story on Minot ND is a must to hear.
Rep. Maxine mailed a letter to all of her fellow Reps. and called on them to show up Saturday and join her and us on the National Mall for a Mass Demonstration against the War.

January 25, 2007 11:24 AM  
Blogger robin andrea said...

The war is a shell-game. The rationales are here and there. None of them honest. The real reasons are off on some shelf gathering dust. The Supreme-court protected transcripts of Cheney's energy meetings in 2001. This war is also like the game of clue. Cheney in the parlor with the oil execs. Bush in the oval office with the Neo-cons. Why did we go? I have no idea, but I think it had to do with oil and money. Fortunes to be made from one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Hard to let Saddam keep that, and now we have to fight Iran to keep them from getting their grubby hands on it.

January 25, 2007 11:53 AM  
Blogger Spadoman said...

Human... I stand corrected. It was indeed Maxine Waters. I pulled that name out of my old tired of dealing with war butt. I made a mistake.

I will post the entire Maxine Waters interview tomorrow on my blog, or go to the Democracy Now Archives and read/ or see it for yourselves.

Thank you for the correction.

January 25, 2007 1:34 PM  
Blogger Fixer said...

At the end of most wars, one side surrenders to the other and a winner is declared.

Didn't happen in Vietnam and Korea and it sure as hell ain't happening in Iraq.

January 25, 2007 2:06 PM  
Blogger JBlue said...

Good questions. Can you take those to Washington, maybe?

(Just saw your comment on my blog and laughed out loud. Thanks for that.)

January 25, 2007 2:08 PM  
Blogger Geoffrey Milder said...

I thought the reason for America's presence in Iraq was obvious. Come for the the overthrow of a totalitarian regime, stay for the falafel.


January 25, 2007 3:03 PM  
Blogger C-dell said...

I never thought of it that way. I assume we are fighting anyone going against the Established govn't, but that seems to be the minority in Iraq. Very good post. Made me think.

January 25, 2007 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those are all valid questions, but don't follow jblue's advice to take them to Washington, it's just so darned uncomfortable watching a nation's leader's being embarrassed and looking like a bunch of school kids who didn't do their homework.

Hey you'll love our sense of irony over here, the Headline in the newspapers on the article about the State of the Nation was "Give War a Chance: Bush".

January 25, 2007 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you haven't seen it yet, you have to stop by and read Cheney's Hogwash statement article. That sums on the thinking of this pie-in-the-sky adminstration nicely.

January 25, 2007 11:57 PM  
Blogger sumo said...

I think there are millions of people thinking the same thing you just wrote. And just like the King of Siam said in "The King and I"...tis a puzzlement! We know it to be a simple thing to accomplish...leaving Iraq I mean...why they won't look at it this beyond me.

January 26, 2007 12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you asked Bush to define "victory" he would say it's when we have a stable government in Iraq, but - the only people who can provide a stable government is the Iraqis themselves. What Bush defines as "victory" is an Iraq with a stable government and no unrest; no insurgency. He still can't see that everywhere America has poked its nose in the Middle East, it has created unrest. There never can be stability while American troops remain. Bush's quandary, and the reason for the "surge", is that he needs troops there to suppress the insurgency so the oil companies can profit from the oil. It's a vicious circle from which he has no escape - except to move in more and more troops, which the American people are unlikely to tolerate for much longer.

January 27, 2007 10:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home