Someone, Please, Ask The Question

WASHINGTON, June 21 — The Senate was immersed today in an impassioned and prolonged debate over Iraq, with Republicans accusing Democrats of lacking the resolve to see the war to an honorable end and Democrats accusing Republicans of election-year politics…

Mr. McCain said that the Bush administration had made "serious mistakes" in Iraq, but that withdrawing prematurely would be a far more serious one. "Iraqi forces are not yet capable of securing the country," he said.

The options available to the United States are what they have always been, Mr. McCain said: "Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed."

Succeed at what???  What exactly is it that we're hoping to win in Iraq? 

A global defeat of terrorism?  That'd be a neat trick since Osama bin Laden--the guy who murdered 3000 Americans on live TV--is and has been for the last four years in Pakistan.  At best, a "victory" in Iraq might actually manage to stop Iraq from being a training ground and net exporter of terrorists.

Though, I can only get so excited about that since Iraq had no terrorists in it before Bush stupidly invaded the country. 

I mean, that's stupid.  A trillion dollars--and make no mistake, this fiasco is going to cost a trillion dollars--and thousands of lives to stamp out terrorism in a country where there would be no terrorists if we hadn't invaded to stamp out a terrorist threat, which, of course, never existed.

I can't call that a victory.  Even if it happens.  I just can't see how we won anything.  It seems like a giant fucking stupid waste. 

But what else?  What else are we going to win?  The Amazing Shrinking and Expanding Iraqi security forces, when not shooting Americans, are going to secure the country, and the Great Iraqi Democracy is going to take root, and thrive, and spread it's American Eagle like wings over the whole region?

That's what we're going to "win"?

TEHRAN, Iran -- To Iran's west lies a natural ally and perhaps its most potent weapon in the international fray over its nuclear program. While Iran and Iraq were arch enemies during the rule of Saddam Hussein, all signs point to an increasingly robust relationship now that Shiites have achieved a dominant role in the Iraqi leadership.

It's a bond that has yet to reach its potential _ in large part because the U.S.-led invasion is responsible for Iraqi Shiites being at the top of the political heap for the first time in modern history. Iraqi Shiites are not looking the gift horse in the mouth…

"Iran has a clear strategic depth in Iraq and there is an alliance between Iran and the upcoming Iraqi powers," said Iranian political analyst Mashallah Shamsolvaezin. "Iran hasn't utilized that option yet and it's a card that will be very influential."

The government of Iraq, with or without American firepower, is going to be an Islamic, Iranian friendly theocracy.  That's it.

That is the best you can possibly hope for.

It already is. 

It might be an Islamic Theocracy which pretty much minds its own business.  Or it might be one that flexes it's gigantic petro-dollar muscles, assisting Iran and Pakistan with missile technology and nuclear weapons, while exporting Islamic theocracy all across the mid-east.

But that's it.

Maybe it'll be a theocracy that tolerates the Sunnis, but then, the Sunnis have grown to despise America and support al Qaeda.  Maybe it'll be theorcracy that unleashes genocide against the Sunnis.  Then the Sunni problem will be gone and the Shiites can get down to business of being Iran's new best friend. 

With oil.

And if Americans leave, then the Iran friendly Islamic theocratic government will surely disavow all those oil contracts with American corporations the CPA shoved down their throats.  So Americans can't leave.

Which means the plan is to stay in Iraq forever.  At an appalling cost.  And every two years, have this same debate in Congress.

But that's it.  That's what's in the pot.  Is anybody, is one single American going to feel like they've won anything if that's what we get?  And no one has realistically suggested we're going to get anything but that.

There is nothing to be won. 

This debate is nearly as stupid as the coverage of it. Tell the American people. Tell them. 

Here's what you stand to win!  And here's what you stand to lose.

For God's sakes, someone tell them the truth.

Comments

[Jerry]

Well, naturally. As Huck said of kings, "S'pose he opened his mouth -- what then? If he didn't shut it up powerful quick he'd lose a lie every time."

There is no way, since the decision to ignore his best military advisor (and can their asses, to boot) and send in a handful (Handful: enough for heaps of them to die, not enough to accomplish shit-all) of gas-pumpers, shoe-salesmen and soda-jerks hae they intended give up what they seem to actually believe is a vital and viable "foot-print" in the region.

And we sure aren't spending billions upon billions on our OWN infrastructure there (biggest embassy in the world, at least 12 permanent military bases) because we (and by "we" I mean "the soulless greedhead slime in the administration and every moron they dangled a bright shiny thing in front of and who voted for them and the useless prick Nader (may his soul spend eternity in a blazing Pinto) have the slightest intent to ever bring 'em home.

[Jerry]

Oh, yeah! To answer the unasked question I offer this letter-to-the-editor:
from California's conservative Big Valley

I would like to agree that the Iraq War is because of oil, but in a small twist to the popular argument, I would propose that it is all about shutting the supply down.

Many in the current administration would have us believe that this war of aggression was first about WMD, then a continuation of the supposed war on terror, and finally to bring democracy to an oppressed people. Yet if you pay close attention to what they have done and not what they say, you will see that the Neocons' first order of duty in Iraq was to secure the Oil Ministry, lock down the oil fields and dismiss Iraq's army. All of these moves would later prove to foment the insurgency and ultimately result in civil war. WMD sites were not guarded; Zarquawi was left to raise an army and the infrastructure, which could pave the road to democracy, was left in a shambles while select Bush-supporting American contractors robbed an estimated $9 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Now, many would argue that having control over the last great oil reserves serves the U.S. interest. Why would we allow the Russians, Indians or Chinese to control the spigot of these precious last reserves?

One only needs to follow the money for the real answer. At the beginning of this failed administration, Sadam Hussein was threatening the Saudis that he would flood the oil market with Iraqi crude if they didn't get the U.S. off of their backs. This, of course, would have lowered the price per barrel substantially and for Bush, cost his family and Saudi buddies huge sums of money. So, the answer was simple, invade Iraq under false pretenses, shut down the flow of Iraqi oil, foment a civil war which would necessitate our troops permanent presence and watch the price of oil soar.

This war is about oil. But it's also about greed, manipulation and domination. The winners are the friends and family of George W. Bush, the Bin Ladins and the Saudi royal family. The losers are the soldiers, the innocent victims, democracy, you and me. Please, I implore you, vote this lawless administration and Congress out, before we are their next target.