Letters to the Editor
-
Because...
...you should never go into something as serious and potentially damaging as war without a full and fair debate about the necessity, costs, duration and consequences.
Oh, wait...
-
What we need are substantial hearings not debate
Actually, I don't think a debate is going to do much of anything unless it impacts press coverage. No one in the Senate is likely to have a change of heart.
What we need are investigations relating into the run up to the war, the prosecution of the war, and the followup to the invasion. Lots of subpoenas and testimony will have more of an effect on ending the war than any Senate debate. More pressure will come to bear on Senators who still give Bush whatever support he needs on the war when day after day of testimony shows the lies that started the war, the corruption that botched the rebuilding, the political interference that gets soldiers killed, the abandonment of returned soldiers, and the outright abuse of those with injuries that have to go back into a war zone because Bush demands the numbers.
-
They're bluffing
The measure calls for the withdrawl of troops:
"except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes: (1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces; (3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. "
That's what the troops are doing now. More or less.
First it was imposssible to understand why there could be any rational argument for NOT EVEN "debating" the state of our involvement in Iraq. Now we have a measure that more-or-less pretends to do something without actually doing something. The provision leaving a "limited" number of troops for such hugely open-ended purposes is a loophole to leaving that is big enough to drive a platoon of Humvees through. That is, if we had them.
Thanks for nothing, Congress. Let's see some real cards on the table. The chips have been down for five years.
-
Nita -- I agree wholeheartedly, it's a sham, but it's important to get it down on paper
EVERYBODY wants to "bring our troops home" ... except ...
and when the Iraqis say they want us out, I suspect their "except" is infinitely smaller, if it exists at all ... perhaps by "current invitation only"
WE need to start planning our "withdrawal" NOW and being honest (and god-willing cooperative) with the Iraqis in order to dispell SOME of the stigma of being a "collaborator" for anyone not actively fighting us.
Transparency, it's a good thing.
(if/when they inch closer to defining all the of the "excepts", it will give US anti-war types something to lobby for/against, etc. ... we need to define "leaving")
-
Nita...you beat me to it
This is like putting froasting on a styrofoam cake. Its meaningless. They're hedging their bets with this one. It addresses the anti-war sentiment in the country while supporting "stay the course"...just in case.
-
Enough bases?
Gee, do you think that 14 superbases and the largest US Embassy in the world is enough to conduct "targeted counter-terrorism operations"? Because we could probably go back to the 19 superbases in the original plan.
Whatever anyone says now, we have already created a huge, PERMANENT infrastructure for ourselves in Iraq. No resolution, even if you took the pages and bound the Pres right to a chair with it, could stop the military industrial complex and its Iraq occupation.
Hey, did you hear, Japan's leader talked this morning in a speech about standing up Japanese forces and taking over their own defense, so we can reduce-- not elimate-- the 50,000 US troops in Japan.* Wow, they want to stand up so we can sit down! What, 60 years after the war? Does anyone think Iraq with its 14 superbases will be any different?
Sorry, I'm feeling a little snarky today. Government ineptitude puts me in a foul mood.
We do need to get our protestations down on paper as Susan said, but Nita Martin has it right that this means nothing. If it doesn't have the teeth to address the inexorable march (pardon the pun) of permanent bases, then it can't do anything.
----
*In trying to find a link to this story, I found several different takes on it. BBC radio this morning made it sound like Japan's idea. Defensenews.com claims it was the US's idea, that we're putting pressure on them. (Which sounds a little more likely.) ShanghaiDaily.com is reporting that Japan has just signed a defense pact with Australia-- have they given up on us and need a new "big strong man"? Lastly, in researching this I learned that Japan's constitution prohibits them from having much of a military since they were, ahem, not exactly to be trusted with one after WWII. So, not wimpy, just cautious. Still, anyone who can make a flash drive watch I think can take a more active stance in their defense.
-
The first step
Well imagine where we'd be if the Repubs were still in charge...it may be almost meaningless but that's a shade better than meaningless...