Friday :: Aug 24, 2007

It Was Never About Reconciliation

by Steve

If the Bush Administration now admits that the surge never had anything to do with giving the Iraqi government breathing room for political reconciliation, but instead now is all about security, then:

1. Isn’t this a naked and faulty justification for a permanent occupation?
2. Who defines “security”, us or the Iraqis?
3. How many more troops will it take for this “security”?
4. Why should our troops be sacrificed to achieve what cannot be achieved?
5. At what point did the American people sign on to be Iraq’s permanent policeman?
6. When did America agree to a $10 billion/month permanent occupation while our military falls apart?

If the House and Senate Republicans are now going to be strapped to a new “security without reconciliation millstone, and apparently willingly, shouldn’t Democrats now spend the next three weeks in advance of the Petraeus report blasting the White House and GOP for grasping at any justification for endless war?

What incentive does a permanent occupation provide the Iraqis, except to keep killing Americans? If you are now saying that we won't leave until our concept of security is achieved, which General Shinseki has already told us is unachievable because we don't have the troops, then you are advocating for a permanent occupation, unless you stupidly believe that our threat to stay indefinitely provides an incentive for warring factions to suddenly get along.

The one common enemy of all factions in and around Iraq is Al Qaeda, yet the Bush Administration has never done anything to structure an incentive around eliminating that common enemy and a common desire by all of them for us to leave. Could we get the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Iranians to work together with us at various levels for a year to eliminate Al Qaeda if we agree to seriously draw down our forces after that year and let them sort things out regionally themselves?

Steve :: 3:42 PM :: Comments (10) :: Digg It!