Yes, on the surface things seem to be getting better in Iraq. As the Brits noticed, once the Occupation forces pull out of a region, the fighting stops. This is because the fighting never was about "insurgents", "Al Qaeda", or Civil War as much as it was about a population trying to fight off an invading superior force. When said force departs, there is no one to fight. This allows relative peace to form. But departing is not what George Bush went to Iraq for..he went to conquer it and occupy it. I take some issue with Soto's statement "trapped by their base into a permanent occupation ". I don't think our government is trapped by it's "base", our government/Bush/Cheney intended to take over Iraq and they've tricked the base into thinking that the evildoers will attack us again if we leave. Their base are sheep easily led.
Certainly, if we were governed by people who want out of Iraq, the recent decline in violence fomented by the reduction of Coalition troops would clearly point to the benefit of further, immediate and substantial reductions/withdrawals. But we are not governed by those kind of people.
Bush's purpose for having troops stationed in Iraq is to have troops in Iraq. He openly says they should remain for 50 years, without referecne to conditions or reasons for such permanent garrisoning.
As T2 says, most "Iraqis", being ordinary humans, don't like such a foreign military occupation of their country. They aren't "satisfied customers", to use a phrase BushAmericans might understand. So they "act out" and must be termed "evildoers" or worse, "al qaeda".
I frankly don't know anymore what the Congressional Dems think should be done about the Iraq Occupation. I do know, based on their latest $490 billion "Defense" budget outrage, that they are a militarist party. So when they see a military operation, like occupying Iraq, they like it just because soldiers and planes are involved. "National Defense", doncha know?
Posted by euzoius at November 20, 2007 07:25 AMmore than National Defense, euzolus, I think it's Military/Industrial Complex. It is money being made on war, and that money is spread around both parties. Just an aside....somewhat close to where I live is a large factory that builds military type vehicles...troop carriers, etc. Before Iraq, their storage lot had a few vehicles on it. Now there are hundreds if not thousands of vehicles on it every time I pass by.
Posted by T2 at November 20, 2007 09:34 AMPoint taken, T2, I was just being sarcastic in my use of the phrase "national defense".
If we weren't spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of taxpayer money a year on the absurd, abusive, wasteful MI complex, the economy would really be in the crapper, eh? As it is, we get tons of worthless, economically unproductive military hardware for our enormous "investment" of scarce public funds.
Those fleets of US Army hummers will be a big help to our looming energy-deprived future.
Posted by euzoius at November 20, 2007 10:30 AMThe Brits leaving Basra has left a void that Americans are probably going to have to fill. Their leaving hasn't been as positive as we'd like to believe. I wish it wasn't so but it is. Basra is the most dangerous city in Iraq now, much more so than Baghdad. PM Brown caved with his troop reduction.
Posted by peter at November 20, 2007 02:40 PMDems might be wrong, but let's see the situation in Iraq a year from now. Israelis are pessimistic on Iraq, here http://samsonblinded.org/blog/iraqs-standard-of-safety.htm
Posted by Ann at November 20, 2007 03:50 PMpants pissing peter doesn't understand that PM Brown knew better than to leave British troops in the middle of a civil war
Posted by Gay Veteran at November 21, 2007 10:13 AM