When Rep. Jan Schakowsky made her first trip to Iraq this month, the outspoken antiwar liberal resolved to keep her opinions to herself. "I would listen and learn," she decided.
At times that proved a challenge, as when Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told her congressional delegation, "There’s not going to be political reconciliation by this September; there’s not going to be political reconciliation by next September." Schakowsky gulped — wasn’t that the whole idea of President Bush’s troop increase, to buy time for that political progress?
But the real test came over a lunch with Gen. David H. Petraeus, who used charts and a laser pointer to show how security conditions were gradually improving — evidence, he argued, that the troop increase is doing some good.
Still, the U.S. commander cautioned, it could take another decade before real stability is at hand. Schakowsky gasped. "I come from an environment where people talk nine to 10 months," she said, referring to the time frame for withdrawal that many Democrats are advocating. "And there he was, talking nine to 10 years."
The trip gave Schakowsky a good look at the challenge that Democrats face next month, when Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker travel to Washington to testify before Congress, presumably with similar charts and arguments that the U.S. military is making strides in Iraq, and that withdrawal dates would be reckless and wrong.
The lack of political progress among Iraq’s rival factions and Petraeus’s estimate of the time needed to stabilize the nation left Schakowsky all the more convinced that Democrats must force Bush to begin bringing troops home.
I wonder how many leaders over the course of human social experience have decided they can to change the course of history. There’s a fantasy in Washington that there’s something called "stabilizing Iraq." It didn’t occur to them before we invaded. They set out to have a "regime change." Getting rid of the old regime [Saddam Hussein and the Bathist Party] was a walk in the park. It only took a few months. They had a deck of cards with the pictures of the guys they wanted to get rid of – remember?So they got rid of that government and awaited the predicted "open arms" of the liberated Iraqis. I think they thought they could install Amhad Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress as the government as we had done with the Shah of Iran long ago. Well it didn’t exactly work out like they’d planned. Now, they’re going to stabilze the warring factions, I guess sort of like Saddam Hussein had stabilized Iraq – by force. It never was going to happen. Tito tried something like that in Yugoslavia. It didn’t work very well either – lasting only as long as he lasted.
American Foreign Policy has traditionally been about Defense. And the 2002-2003 campaign to invade Iraq was advertised to be about National Defense. That was a deliberate, bold-faced, lie. We all know that now. So the current campaign cannot be about the original goal – National Defense – as it was spoken about in 2003. They’ve kind of eased it into a new version of National Defense – "stabilize Iraq" because they’re now so angry at us that they might be dangerous to us in the future. So, how is staying there killing more Iraqi people and messing with their internal politics going to help us with this new version of National Defense? How’s our track record of manipulating foreign countries working for us over time? Not so well in my humble opinion.
National Defense = Defending our Nation
Mr. William Kristol would have you believe that our my opinion of this war, and our my previous opinion of the Viet Nam War are distorted by our my other "Liberal" views. He links this belief in the individual rights of others – minorities, the mentally ill, the impoverished – to the idea that National Defense doesn’t mean interferring in the internal workings of other countries. I fail to see his connection. I was all for the war in Afghanistan. I would have been pleased as punch had we supported it completely. I wouldn’t have been opposed to chasing Bin Laden into Pakistan until we found him. Bin Laden attacked our Nation. In that endeavor, I’m a Hawk – an unashamed Hawk. But invading Iraq seemed unjustified and stupid in 2002 when Bush brought it up. It seemed ludicrous in 2003 when he did it. And it seems crazy now. Continuing the failed endeavor seems self-destructive. Mr. Kristol’s sarcastic, demeaning pronouncements don’t change what I feel. I’ve got nothing to say about him. He’s a well dressed, nice looking fellow who says nasty, irresponsible things. That’s his business.
We need well known people who are respected on both sides of the aisle like Senator Warner to say enough blood enough blood. We have to stop lying to Americans and the world and get the heck out of there. Mr. President you lied to us and you are still lying to us. Democrats running for the office of president have to lists all the lies over and over again and there are a lot of lies. They need to have the guts to call Bush’s statements lies and say stop lying to our citizens. I use to be on a lot of Boards and committees while my kids were little and I would hear people complaining about other board members before the meeting and then when the actual meetings would start, the same people complaining before the meeting would be all peaches and cream with each other. Lets stop playing games and tell these people to their face the truth.