I love how this reporter has decided to call the war in Iraq a victory when it’s not really over yet, and apparently won’t be anytime soon:
WASHINGTON — The men responsible for winning the U.S. war in Iraq made their case before a nervous Congress today, telling members of the Senate and House concerned about declining public support for the war that victory in Iraq was certain and that a U.S. military withdrawal would plunge the country into chaos.
Despite a sophisticated and effective insurgency that they said had not diminished in strength, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and three top military commanders painted a picture of steady progress in Iraq. And they warned skittish members of Congress that bowing to public pressure for a U.S. troop pullout could lead to a far more dangerous Iraq than the one that exists today.
Okay, let’s make a couple of things crystal clear:
1. Politicians work for the public and are intended to represent the opinions and wishes of the public, or at least, that’s what I was told in my ultra-idealistic civics class way back in middle school. So, if the majority of the public believes we shouldn’t be at war, then maybe we shouldn’t be at war!
2. There is one reason, and only one reason, why Iraq is incredibly dangerous these days, and it’s because there’s a significant faction of people there who feel they don’t want US troops occupying their country. Call me “unpatriotic,” but I think that’s kind of a reasonable request!
3. You can’t be winning a war, and at the same time delcare the insurgency “sophisiticated and effective.” It’s either one or the other, and if you feel that the resistance in Iraq is making some headway, then most sane people take that to mean that the US is losing.
One more thing about this Iraqi insurgency. Let me tell you a little story…
Once upon a time, there were a group of people who didn’t very much like the fact that a military force from another country were occupying the land that they called home, imposing a very strict and rigid form of order, forcing common citizens to board them and otherwise put up with them, and generally bullying the civilian populace. The result: a popular uprising and a violent insurgency campaign erupted against this invading force, which ultimately forced the withdrawal of the troops. The rebuffed military force that had invaded had scoffed at the rebellious civilians, accusing them of terrorist activity, and claiming that the brand of order and strict control they brought with them were needed to maintain civility, and that the resistance could not possibly stand on its own. But to everyone’s chagrin, that resistance successfully formed a government of its own, and it actually did pretty damn well.
Later, it became known as the United States of America.
If the more xenophobic among Iraqis are unjustified in their resistance, and the current administration feels that a strict and rigid form of military order and enforcement are needed to bring Iraq in line, then they have in effect declared the American Revolution to be an act carried out by rebellious terrorist cells, that should not have been undertaken. And that, I think, is the most unpatriotic stance I’ve ever seen.
On the other hand, we COULD learn from history, graciously give the Iraqis what they appear to want, perhaps offer a little additional economic assistance (or not!) and leave, before the situation becomes politically untenable and our military ouster is forced upon us.
Nah, that would be the smart thing to do. And smart just doesn’t define the current administration.