Sunday :: Sep 25, 2005

Now Even Juan Cole Calls For Withdrawal


by Steve

It is significant to me when someone who has been against the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq suddenly changes his or her mind based on new information, or a reassessment of their previous position. Juan Cole now is supporting the removal of our forces from Iraq, simply because it appears recently that the only function the United States is capable of inside the country is the destruction of cities without merit. I would not do it justice by paraphrasing his arguments, so read the whole piece yourselves.

And a message to the trolls that will challenge this thinking: forget it. Cole has forgotten more than you or your dumbfuck president will ever know about that region of the world. So spare me the arguments that a withdrawal will let the terrorists win, because thanks to your Dear Leader, the terrorists turned the corner towards their victory after Bush leveled Fallujah right after the November 2004 elections here, if not before. Abu Ghraib was bad enough, and before that, it was bad enough that we never had sufficient troops or cared to secure the borders, and secure the country a region at a time. But, as Cole points out, we have lost Mosul, and are losing Baghdad for Christ’s sake, and after the British missteps in Basra the last ten days, the previously calm south is now ripe for large scale violence.

Frankly, the Bush Administration should talk a good game up until the constitutional referendum next month, in the faint hope that a flawed charter can pass. But once that referendum is over, the Bushies should quietly work with the Iraqis to turn over the safe areas of the country to their forces immediately, and focus their remaining time in country on securing the borders and transitioning that responsibility to an international force. Rather than continue the wholesale destruction of cities and towns to purportedly do body-count campaigns against the largely home-grown insurgents, we should tell the Iraqis that they will need to work with the religious leaders to develop their own security in the troubled areas, and get our folks out of there in the first half of 2006.

It won’t happen this way, of course, but that doesn’t prevent the Democrats from talking in these terms as an alternative strategy to the “not on my watch” stupidity from an inebriated president. Simply put, our troops succeeded in their primary objective of regime change and toppling Saddam, and it is time to come home. As a certain presidential candidate said in 2000, we should be guarded in our attempts at using our troops for nation building. If the region unravels from this point on, it will definitely not be fault of our military soldiers on the ground, nor will it be the fault of the anti-war and pro-withdrawal forces here at home, who challenged the policy assumptions behind these lunatic PNAC beliefs from Day One. It was George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld who tasked our soldiers with an assignment without providing enough troops or support, without providing a strategy to secure the peace, and without providing a plan that invested the Iraqis in their own success.

To this day, they still have not done so. It's time to stop the use of our troops as cannon fodder for these failures, and as instruments of city-killing. Our forces succeeded in the one part of their mission that was plain to see. It's time to come home.

(Thanks to commenter DeminNewJ for the tip)

Steve :: 11:20 AM :: Comments (17) :: TrackBack (1) :: Digg It!