i've said it before (sort of), and i'll say it again: re-boosting our troop levels to 160,000 in 2007 and thinking it would reduce the violence, when we had about 160,000 troops in iraq to begin with and that didn't stop the violence then, is not what reduced violence in iraq. are people aware that we've been literally bribing the sunni insurgents to stop attacks, and sucking up to moqtada al-sadr to keep up his truce? that's why the attacks went down. for fuck's sake, it was the occupation of iraq that sunni and shia insurgents were attacking u.s. troops and each other over. and what's more, there are few mixed areas for sunni and shia to fight each other in anymore. and on top of that, where's the goddamned political progress of teary-eyed, hug inducing reconciliation between sunni and shia? is baghdad suddenly getting along better with the kurds?
republicans are dislocating their shoulders patting themselves on the back for getting violence levels down to what they were in 2005, 2004. excuse me, but those years sucked too. maybe they sucked a little less for those of us whose suffering was from watching it on tv. or maybe they sucked a little less because the shitty deceptions of the bush administration to justify this exercise in shittiness hadn't yet sunk in. i don't know.
however, unless you've been living in a cave, the iraqi government finally did what its people have been demanding and told the u.s that it's time to get its troops out. turns out, those permanent military bases the bush administration wanted ain't gonna happen. turns out, the iraqis don't really like the idea. who'dve thunk it? if these bases were for what i think they were (staging grounds for future wars against middle eastern countries), then i can hardly blame the iraqis for saying "FUCK NO!" and if the bush administration is threatening iraq with the loss of $20 billion dollars in its money for not signing the SOFA, then iraqis should kick someone in the nuts. there's a phrase for that tactic- it's called a protection racket.
and here's the kicker. here's what gets me pissed about iraq. let's say that we actually leave things there right as rain. let's say the sunnis and shias and kurds find some other group they can all hate together so they stop fighting each other. let's say that women can realistically leave their homes for jobs, socializing and educations. let's say the oil is flowing and gas is back down to $2 per gallon. WE STILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO AGHGANISTAN AND DEFEAT THE TALIBAN! remember that war?!?!? no?!?!? here's a hint: it's the one john mccain thinks just needs some tweaking. maybe we could even, dare i suggest it, capture bin laden?
in other words, we've lost more than 4,000 members of the u.s. armed forces, over 150 other armed forces from our "coalition" "partners", and anywhere from 86,000 to 1,000,000 iraqi civilians- but "winning" here means we're right back where we started. in 2003. with no bin laden, more opium, and a taliban/al quaeda force that still hasn't gone away. except that now, iraq's leadership won't be a neutralizing force against iran- because of the shia/shia thing, and because of iran's new relationship with iraq. and remember, iran is still in the axis of evil. (i think- i haven't heard that phrase in a few years. it may have died the quiet death "stay the course" did. finally.) we don't want iraq to suddenly start thinking that maybe they should side with iran over us (even though they're supposedly a sovereign nation). at least, not until iran is a trading partner, and they've given us the good trade agreements first. or at least some oil.
No comments:
Post a Comment