This is the key point: right near the beginning of this nightmare it was clear the sole remaining premise for the war was false: that is, the idea that the Iraqis would freely choose a government that would align itself with the US and its goals in the region. As the occupation continued, anti-American sentiment -- both toward the occupation and America's role in the world -- has only grown.
I would submit that virtually everything we've done in Iraq since mid-late 2003 has been an effort to obscure this fact. And our policy has been one of continuing the occupation to create the illusion that this reality was not in fact reality. In short, it was a policy of denial.
I would ask the Michelle Malkins and the Rush Limbaughs to take a step back from misquoting Harry Reid and labeling him a traitor and a rouge and have them explain, in clear terms, who we are fighting in Iraq, and exactly what we hope to achieve. Leave aside the fact that this administration came into office in 2000 clearly opposed to a broad foreign policy involved in "nation building". That is water under the bridge by now. Take it from the situation that we are in right now. Then explain to the American public what it is we are hoping to accomplish in Iraq.
I don't know that it is even feasible to leave Iraq right now. Michael Ware, on CNN last night, said that the consequences of an American withdraw at this moment would be cataclysmic genocide. Strangely enough, Colin Powell was probably right at the outset when he told Bush, "you break it, you own it". We do own it now, and some American military presence in Iraq will long survive me. Too bad Powell sacrificed his reputation for a man who couldn't even understand, or willfully ignored, that simple advice. That said, although leaving right now may not be an option that we can stomach, it is important to understand what terms like winning and losing mean, or in this case, cannot mean in traditional terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment