Petreaus and Crocker have a couple of really difficult jobs, but they seem to actually believe they can tease the Iraqis into having something of a non-ethno-sectarian government. I liked them. They seemed competent. Crocker’s comment, "Our current course is hard, the alternative is much worse" summarizes their presentation and their recommendations. It’s hard to imagine that we’d find better people to be there. But it’s still even harder to imagine that our President and Vice President put us in this situation so cavalierly four and a half years ago – "over in six months," "welcome us with open arms," "the oil will pay for war," "Mission Accomplished."
I feel sorry for them in a way. They’re tasked with cleaning up a mess that has festered for years, centuries, a mess not of their making. They seem to believe that we are in Iraq to help the Iraqis "find themselves" and find their own government. They don’t seem to think that the two of them are patsies in a plan to gain an American foothold in the Middle East as an island from which to fight Iran and the Islamic Fundamentalists while profitting from the oil exploration of the Iraqi deserts. I don’t guess I’d expect them to think such things. They wouldn’t have accepted their jobs if that’s what they thought. Likewise, both of these men seem to be heavily into the idea that Iran is our real enemy.
They seem to be operating on the premise that our invasion of Iraq was something we did because Saddam Hussein was a "bad man" and harmful to his people. That’s not in my memory at all. We invaded Iraq because we were told Iraq was dangerous to us. Iraq was not dangerous at that time. Now, these gentlemen are sitting in Washinton telling us that we must persist in our Iraq War because Iraq is dangerous to us. This time, these two guys might be right. We actively created an Iraq that is a real rather than imagined danger.
When you are in a double bind, an impossible situation, the first step is to state the dilemma out loud, publicly. The mistake is to let it sit quietly behind what you’re saying, informing what you do, but never seeing the light of day. Here it is.
on the one hand … If we take what Petraeus and Crocker say at face value, if we continue to support Iraq as it tries to find a way of governing that works, we are doing the right thing by the Iraqis and protecting ourselves from the results of that country falling into a state of chaos. On the other hand, we are also validating Bush and Cheney for lying to get us there, mismanaging to war, having underhanded and questionable motives, and the espousing an absurd foreign policy of their neoconservative handlers. Worse [if its possible], we’re leaving ourselves open to their attacking Iran using the same sick logic. Fighting Iran may be in our future, but it is not for them to say…
one the other hand … If we repudiate this absurd war that Bush and Cheney lied us into, we leave the Iraqis high and dry, and create another fundamentalist Islamic state no better, but much more dangerous, than Hussein’s…
Sounds good to me. I had a doctor’s app and I had chest pains while I was driving to the office. I realized it started after I heard the Ambassador’s statement. The pain lasted for an hour. I was glad that I couldn’t continue hearing the testimony of the General and Ambassador. I came back home about 4:15 and turned on the tv as Rep. Eni Faleomavaega spoke about Iraq and he asked darn good questions. He’s a Viet nam vet and retired as a Captain in the reserves. He is no slouch and I hope other Democrats will follow up with likewise questions.