Interpreting the refusal to leave Iraq
Despite the heart-felt demands of Rep. John Murtha for Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Bush has restated his intent to stay in Iraq and has resorted to name-calling upon those who disagree. What a sorry situation.
Murtha gets it. The majority of Iraqis want us to leave--45% of Iraqis support the insurgent attacks on U.S. troops. The "insurgents" aren't fighting against the new government--they are fighting us. They are fighting a U.S. occupation of their country--they are not trying to reinstate Saddam's regime. If we leave, their war is over. If we stay, the war continues. Seems simple. Of course, it has become much more complicated, because the insurgents have now been joined by some terrorists, due to our refusal to leave, which has fueled the long-standing resentment against the U.S. in the Middle East.
Murtha gets it. He visits the wounded in Walter Reed every week, and he says that the troops are not demoralized by the anti-war sentiments at home--the troops are demoralized by the lack of a timetable for withdrawal, by the lack of an exit strategy, by the "stop-loss" orders that have extended combat by two and three tours, and by the lack of government care for their families at home. Murtha reports the statistics the news media ignore, while they focus on the number of dead, that we have 15,000 seriously injured and another 50,000 with combat fatigue. And Bush refuses to discuss a plan for withdrawal. Bush's reckless ambitions have broken the army, just as it was broken after Vietnam.
Bush isn't stupid, although he chooses to project this image, and he can make the same sense of the situation that Murtha makes. So his recalcitrance is evidence of his initial intent in attacking Iraq: to establish an "Okinawa" in the Middle East. If we keep in mind that Bush has never leveled with us about his true purpose in attacking Iraq, his consequent behaviors make sense. If you take the "Okinawa" link, you can download a Powerpoint, "Marines on Okinawa" (in the right-hand column), that makes very clear the importance of such an occupation in our control of a region.
Bush can joke about not finding WMDs under his desk--because he didn't attack Iraq as an eminent threat. He can dismiss the importance of misused WMD intelligence--because he didn't attack Iraq over WMDs. That was just the PR story. He attacked Iraq because he wanted real estate for a permanent military base--an Okinawa in the Middle East. North Korea, on the other hand, is an eminent threat--but Bush is not going to attack N. Korea because we have Okinawa--so we don't need the real estate. Bush won't set a timetable to withdraw troops--because he doesn't intend to withdraw our troops. He has to "stay the course" to establish those bases, even if their continued presence tanks the new government as Iraqis realize it is only a puppet government of the U.S. If we listen to what people in the Middle East are saying, it becomes clear that the American people are the only ones who haven't figured out the game plan: we aren't leaving.
This war is about the love of money. It's about controlling access to oil reserves. It's about the administration's connections to oil (primarily) and other MNCs (like Halliburton). We have elected an administration that operates to protect the interests of the rich. When Kanye West spoke his now-famous line, "George Bush doesn't care about Black people," he was speaking from his heart, but a more evident statement is that George Bush and the GOP care about the rich and privileged above the poor and disadvantaged. That can be seen by the actions of the Congress this week, when the GOP-dominated house passed legislation for more tax cuts for the rich (Washington Post) and more budget cuts on programs for "the poor, students, and farmers" (Washington Post). The louder they proclaim their "morality," the louder their actions speak for their love of money (I Timothy 6:10, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs").
So under mounting pressure to announce some kind of intention to leave Iraq, Bush stubbornly refuses to utter such a reassurance, instead proclaiming that we will "stay the course"--and each time he proclaims this, the next day's headlines report violent attacks by "insurgents." Bush protests that pulling our troops from Iraq will dishonor the sacrifices our soldiers have made there--because our troops aren't there just to institute a new government and national elections. The administration's goal is permanent presence--and if our troops leave, then the sacrifices are all for nothing. That simple twist explains why he feels that bringing our troops home would make meaningless all the sacrifices. It's right there between the lines--we're not leaving. We never intended to leave. The war isn't about Iraqi freedom or imminent threats. It's about permanent occupation. And that's about money.
The United States boycotted the Olympics in 1980 to show disapproval for the U.S.S.R. invasion of Afghanistan. Growing up during the Cold War, I was constantly presented with the contrast between the peace-loving U.S. and the aggressive bully of the U.S.S.R. What this Bush administration has done in Iraq is to change what it means to be an American. We are now that aggressive bully, rolling into another country to further our own agenda. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." That's why my reaction goes beyond disapproval. I am angry that the Bush administration has dirtied our reputation around the world--we are the aggressor now. We are the country that invades a weaker country just to obtain some real estate. And since "American" is part of the self-identity of each American, this reckless administration has dirtied each of us.
Murtha gets it. The majority of Iraqis want us to leave--45% of Iraqis support the insurgent attacks on U.S. troops. The "insurgents" aren't fighting against the new government--they are fighting us. They are fighting a U.S. occupation of their country--they are not trying to reinstate Saddam's regime. If we leave, their war is over. If we stay, the war continues. Seems simple. Of course, it has become much more complicated, because the insurgents have now been joined by some terrorists, due to our refusal to leave, which has fueled the long-standing resentment against the U.S. in the Middle East.
Murtha gets it. He visits the wounded in Walter Reed every week, and he says that the troops are not demoralized by the anti-war sentiments at home--the troops are demoralized by the lack of a timetable for withdrawal, by the lack of an exit strategy, by the "stop-loss" orders that have extended combat by two and three tours, and by the lack of government care for their families at home. Murtha reports the statistics the news media ignore, while they focus on the number of dead, that we have 15,000 seriously injured and another 50,000 with combat fatigue. And Bush refuses to discuss a plan for withdrawal. Bush's reckless ambitions have broken the army, just as it was broken after Vietnam.
Bush isn't stupid, although he chooses to project this image, and he can make the same sense of the situation that Murtha makes. So his recalcitrance is evidence of his initial intent in attacking Iraq: to establish an "Okinawa" in the Middle East. If we keep in mind that Bush has never leveled with us about his true purpose in attacking Iraq, his consequent behaviors make sense. If you take the "Okinawa" link, you can download a Powerpoint, "Marines on Okinawa" (in the right-hand column), that makes very clear the importance of such an occupation in our control of a region.
Bush can joke about not finding WMDs under his desk--because he didn't attack Iraq as an eminent threat. He can dismiss the importance of misused WMD intelligence--because he didn't attack Iraq over WMDs. That was just the PR story. He attacked Iraq because he wanted real estate for a permanent military base--an Okinawa in the Middle East. North Korea, on the other hand, is an eminent threat--but Bush is not going to attack N. Korea because we have Okinawa--so we don't need the real estate. Bush won't set a timetable to withdraw troops--because he doesn't intend to withdraw our troops. He has to "stay the course" to establish those bases, even if their continued presence tanks the new government as Iraqis realize it is only a puppet government of the U.S. If we listen to what people in the Middle East are saying, it becomes clear that the American people are the only ones who haven't figured out the game plan: we aren't leaving.
This war is about the love of money. It's about controlling access to oil reserves. It's about the administration's connections to oil (primarily) and other MNCs (like Halliburton). We have elected an administration that operates to protect the interests of the rich. When Kanye West spoke his now-famous line, "George Bush doesn't care about Black people," he was speaking from his heart, but a more evident statement is that George Bush and the GOP care about the rich and privileged above the poor and disadvantaged. That can be seen by the actions of the Congress this week, when the GOP-dominated house passed legislation for more tax cuts for the rich (Washington Post) and more budget cuts on programs for "the poor, students, and farmers" (Washington Post). The louder they proclaim their "morality," the louder their actions speak for their love of money (I Timothy 6:10, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs").
So under mounting pressure to announce some kind of intention to leave Iraq, Bush stubbornly refuses to utter such a reassurance, instead proclaiming that we will "stay the course"--and each time he proclaims this, the next day's headlines report violent attacks by "insurgents." Bush protests that pulling our troops from Iraq will dishonor the sacrifices our soldiers have made there--because our troops aren't there just to institute a new government and national elections. The administration's goal is permanent presence--and if our troops leave, then the sacrifices are all for nothing. That simple twist explains why he feels that bringing our troops home would make meaningless all the sacrifices. It's right there between the lines--we're not leaving. We never intended to leave. The war isn't about Iraqi freedom or imminent threats. It's about permanent occupation. And that's about money.
The United States boycotted the Olympics in 1980 to show disapproval for the U.S.S.R. invasion of Afghanistan. Growing up during the Cold War, I was constantly presented with the contrast between the peace-loving U.S. and the aggressive bully of the U.S.S.R. What this Bush administration has done in Iraq is to change what it means to be an American. We are now that aggressive bully, rolling into another country to further our own agenda. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." That's why my reaction goes beyond disapproval. I am angry that the Bush administration has dirtied our reputation around the world--we are the aggressor now. We are the country that invades a weaker country just to obtain some real estate. And since "American" is part of the self-identity of each American, this reckless administration has dirtied each of us.
posted by Lynn Holleman Rudloff | 7:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home