Thank you John Murtha
Its time for a rant about the Iraq war:
Top pro-defense Democratic Representative John Murtha has called for the immediate removal of American troops from Iraqi. It is about time. This comes after the US military concedes that white phosphorous was used against Iraqis in the attack on Falluja. At first, the US military denied that chemical weapons were being used, but an Italian documentary was recently released which shows Marines using the chemical weapons and images of civilian victims, including women and children. White phosphorous causes terrible burning which continues as long as the wounds are being fed with oxygen. In a terrible twist of irony, the use of such chemical weapons by Suddam Hussein is one of his most recognized and vicious war crimes against the Kurds of Iraqi. It is beyond me how the US military can possibly justify such a disgusting disregard for human suffering.
After John Murtha’s plea for withdrawal of US troops, Republicans were quick to attack. One of the most telling quotes came from Rep. Duncan Hunter – Armed Services Chairman. Hunter stated that Murtha’s plea was inappropriate because he failed to recognize that “if we don’t change the world the world is going to change us.” Is this really the imperialistic and circular logic that is driving this war? Was it this type of logic that made Suddam Hussein use chemical weapons against the Kurds? Is it this type of logic that gives terrorists their justification for disregard of human suffering?
It is the US that is the champion of globalization. If the US isn’t prepared to compromise its over-consuming and egocentric way of life, then it is the US that will be its own downfall. The people of the world can not possibly put up with this foolishness for much longer. The US must change, or get out of the business of meddling in foreign affairs. The world is not going to stand by as we change it, in the name of protecting our way of life. We must take the first step towards positive change and withdraw our troops from Iraq…oh yeah, and at the very least also apologize for the white phosphorous and the other senseless destruction we’ve caused.
Some say the troops must remain in Iraq until the Iraqis are fully equipped to handle whatever security issues may arise and until a permanent government is established. Those who call for the immediate withdrawl of troops, like Murtha, believe the US troops’ presence itself is a major cause of instability and that their removal would help to alleviate turmoil across the board.
On a daily basis, we can see the results of the continued presence of US troops in Iraq, to the extent that the situation there is accurately reported by the media. So what do you think would happen if the troops were withdrawn immediately (realistically, over the course of a few months)? Would the situation actually improve? Or is that not the point? Should it be our objective, based on the way things have gone thus far, to simply get out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences?
Nader made a really good point about this situation.
He doesn’t believe a complete withdrawal is evitable. A replacement of US with UN troops is more plausible. US troops aren’t looked at as the “good guys” and quite possibly never will be. Frankly speaking, anything with Bush’s name on it is going to be despised by the Mid-East. It’s a much better choice to pull the troops and replace them with a neutral force.
That way both sides of the aisle can claim they were right, and isn’t that really what these politicians are after…
I am watching the hearings in the House at this very moment on C-SPAN. I am increasingly feeling more upset at the fact that the Republicans, first, are trotting all their veterans out to speak about the Murtha withdrawal proposal, and, second, are saying absolutely nothing new on the pulpit. They basically are standing, living, breathing, “Support Our Troops” magnets including the inability to think or process information. Murtha is holding his own, suely, even if Republicans who never served in the military (BIG i.e. to Jean Schmidt, who had the gall to indirectly call Rep. Murtha a “coward”) bark with no bite.
An immediate withdrawal, as it is termed, is definitely not feasible, but “immediate” in this case actually encompasses the better part of a year’s time. However short this may seem to some (and it, to me seems like a sufficient amount of time to withdraw), it does allow enough time to put into motion a peacekeeping force supplied by the UN. There is no possible manner in which we can stay and keep any semblance of peace because in the eyes of much of the world, America is the chief aggressor now. We are no longer the keeper of peace. We are the empire to disassemble.
No matter what, Republicans are grasping at whatever strings they have left (namely, the “War on Terror”) to keep their seats and their positions. While most of the country clearly disapproves of the current administration (most approval rates hover around 35% and is above 50% in Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska), the Republicans of the House and Senate seem to be breaking further away. Now, don’t think their motives are altruistic. This has nothing to do with their concern for the crumbling of America and has everything to do with their own jobs.
If the US were truly to withdraw all troops right now…I’m not sure what the consequences would be. Probably a civil war over control, but this is going to happen no matter when the US pulls its troops out, unless the US supports the new government with military assistance.
The reason that the US is waiting for a government to become established is so that it can control it. Once there is a government created under the guise of democratic elections, it will easily be bought by the United States. The US will provide the new government with military might (probably weapons of mass destruction) to protect the new government from the threat of civil war. In return the US calls all the shots on how the oil is to be controlled, and the new government will have to flex its US funded muscles against any minority groups which stand up for themselves. The Iraqis know this…that is why it has been so difficult to agree on a Constitution which gives enough power to minority groups. Maybe the new Iraqi Constitution will work, but does the Bush Administration really want it to?
For anyone who believes that Iraq should be a sovereign nation, it would be best to pull all of the troops out now, apologize and let the Iraqis control their own destiny.
We should stop pretending that we are their to protect the Iraqi people, spread freedom, or whatever other propaganda rationales exist. We are only there to protect the formation of a puppet government.
I don’t feel it’s as much about control over government as it is control over economy. Allowing American corporations to lobby influence (much like they do here) over all matters of natural resources and consumerism is what the Bushys are truly after. Sure they care about what type of government is set up, but only as far as how much access American corporations have to labor and trade.
Think about China. A country that has mandates on abortion, horrible human rights violations, a Communist regime, and so forth yet, we freely trade with them and have strong economic ties to every one of their major industries.
The reason it’s so difficult is because Iraq WAS ruled by the current “insurgent” minority. Under Sunni rule Iraqi’s suffered most of the bloodshed and tragic events they’re fighting to prevent. Don’t get me wrong, I feel a homegrown revolution is always a better option because it takes the wind out of violent uprising due to a “foreign presence.” But the insurgents in Iraq aren’t fighting against anything more than what comes natural in a minority majority relationship. They’re fighting because only a few years back they were in power and now they’re not.
The situation in Iraq is similar to the South African apartheid; just replace gold and diamonds with oil. Of course when speaking of religious beliefs the differences are apparent. The white conquerors of South Africa were more concerned with wealth than orthodox fundamentalism. Not to mention the white/black ratio was far more extreme than the Shi’a/Sunni. Still, it’s a tough subject giving former oppressors adequate rights under the Constitution.
The first step to controlling the economy is controlling the government. If the new government hadn’t already agreed to allow foriegn (i.e. American and British) investors to dominate the new Iraq economy, then the troops would already be home. One main reason that American and British troops are still in Iraq is to protect the incoming foriegn corporate interests. (Since we destroyed Iraq, we should be paid to rebuild it…duh!)
Another reason that troops are still in Iraq is so that American military bases can be established in Iraq…between the US military presence in Iraq and our pals Isreal we should be able to put that pesky OPEC in its place. Who do they think they are charging fair prices for their oil?
Iraq is a strategic military position for the US…I don’t think US troops will ever leave in our lifetimes. We might cut back within a year…but we will always have a great number of troops in Iraq and probably a few well aimed nuclear warheads.
Just look at our presence in South Korea. Have we really been protecting the South Korea from the spread of Communism this whole time?