Thursday, June 22, 2006

"Cut and run"

So the latest focus-grouped phrase that the Republicans are employing is "cut and run", by which they're referring to a timetable for extracting US troops out of Iraq suggested by Sen. John Kerry and others. Kerry's suggested deadline, outlined in a shot-down resolution in the Senate today, was summer '07; other Democratic Senators, in a parallel resolution (also shot down), recommended that any time in the future would be OK, as long as we just get the hell out.

Of course the Republicans are right: we would be cutting and running if we followed Kerry's advice. To which I would add: So what? Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. How many years are we going to stay in Mesopotamia, expecting different results? Bush has made it clear that American forces will be in Iraq for as long as he is President: do Republicans want all this shit to continue for 2 more years? If any Bush-supporters come across this post, please explain how this would be beneficial. And while you're at it, define "victory", in terms of this military adventure. Does "victory" mean no more violence in Iraq? Just a little violence? Or merely the prevention of a bloodbath between the Sunnis and Shi'ites -- the "hey, it's not technically a civil war" strategy? (The real aim, natch, is a toehold on the country's petroleum reserves.)

I realize that most American soldiers and their families will be irritated by my comments, but hey, all I can say is that this war won't be the first time that common folk who volunteer to serve their country have been deceived by idiotic civilian leadership.

Hey folks, it's your war: defend it logically. Most of the world's Islamic terrorists are not in Iraq -- indeed, a great many reside in the cosmopolitan cities of the West. At least, so say our fear-mongering neo-cons. Well, which is it, boys and girls? If "Islamo-fascism" is the elephant in our room, why are we wasting lives and important dollars in Iraq? You'd be wrong, but at least you could logically defend, for example, the NSA's use of wiretaps as a plausible tactical move in the War on Terror. Or let me put it this way: If you were an al-Qaeda operative, wouldn't you rather be in the West, planning the death of thousands of civilians, instead of taking out a few jarheads with an IED in the desert?

And while we're at it, perhaps someone can explain to me how our overstretched military, bogged down in a sectarian boondoggle in Mesopotamia, is going to deal with the North Koreans, who are getting ready to test-fly a nuclear missile.


Post a Comment

<< Home