Iraq requests a timetable for
Iraqi leaders from each faction have agreed that Bush needs to provide a timetable for withdrawal, and they believe we should be out within 12 months.
My favorite response to this comes from John Avarosis at AMERICAblog: "So has Dick Cheney called the Iraqi government reprehensible for wanting us to withdraw? I can't wait for Rep. Jean Schmidt's statement that the Iraq government is full of cowards."
And the Iraqi leaders have underscored one of my primary complaints about the terminology in this war--we need to clarify the term "terrorism" and it's related term "terrorist." According the the Washington Post story (linked above), the "communique condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if they don't target innocent civilians or institutions that provide for the welfare of Iraqis."
I've been saying that we started out fighting "terrorists" in Iraq whom I would have called "insurgents," but as the number of attacks against our troops increased, and we were unable to stop or slow down this opposition, we began to hear them referred to as "insurgents." This seemed less like a move to select a more accurate terms, and more like an attempt to avoid the conclusion that our tactics have been ineffective against "terrorists." A good definition of "terrorism" would--just as the Iraqi leaders have done--separate attacks against troops (insurgency) from attacks against civilians (terrorism). Good rhetoric from the Iraqi leaders. Bad rhetoric from the White House.
It's going to be interesting to see how the White House spins this one. As I wrote in the last blog, the word from Iraq is that much of the "insurgency" is actually grassroots resistance against U.S. occupation of Iraq and the instillation of a puppet government that would work the will of the U.S., much like France's resistance to the German occupation of France. When we leave, the "insurgency"/resistance melts away.
John Murtha is in touch with military leaders, who know what's going on in Iraq. Seems like his colleagues should know that Murtha wouldn't put himself out on a limb like this without cause. Bless his hawkish heart, because he truly supports the troops.
Let's see if the White House can figure out how to wipe egg off their faces instead of just blaming the egg for being there.
My favorite response to this comes from John Avarosis at AMERICAblog: "So has Dick Cheney called the Iraqi government reprehensible for wanting us to withdraw? I can't wait for Rep. Jean Schmidt's statement that the Iraq government is full of cowards."
And the Iraqi leaders have underscored one of my primary complaints about the terminology in this war--we need to clarify the term "terrorism" and it's related term "terrorist." According the the Washington Post story (linked above), the "communique condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if they don't target innocent civilians or institutions that provide for the welfare of Iraqis."
I've been saying that we started out fighting "terrorists" in Iraq whom I would have called "insurgents," but as the number of attacks against our troops increased, and we were unable to stop or slow down this opposition, we began to hear them referred to as "insurgents." This seemed less like a move to select a more accurate terms, and more like an attempt to avoid the conclusion that our tactics have been ineffective against "terrorists." A good definition of "terrorism" would--just as the Iraqi leaders have done--separate attacks against troops (insurgency) from attacks against civilians (terrorism). Good rhetoric from the Iraqi leaders. Bad rhetoric from the White House.
It's going to be interesting to see how the White House spins this one. As I wrote in the last blog, the word from Iraq is that much of the "insurgency" is actually grassroots resistance against U.S. occupation of Iraq and the instillation of a puppet government that would work the will of the U.S., much like France's resistance to the German occupation of France. When we leave, the "insurgency"/resistance melts away.
John Murtha is in touch with military leaders, who know what's going on in Iraq. Seems like his colleagues should know that Murtha wouldn't put himself out on a limb like this without cause. Bless his hawkish heart, because he truly supports the troops.
Let's see if the White House can figure out how to wipe egg off their faces instead of just blaming the egg for being there.
posted by Lynn Holleman Rudloff | 11:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home