Wednesday, June 15, 2005

“Headlines Torn from Today’s News”

“Bombs kill 33 Iraqi soldiers, police”
This story is from MSNBC this minute as I write this: it’s getting to be a familiar story, almost daily, just like in the days of the Vietnam War. When the US ends its occupation of Iraq, the insurgency will wither and die due to lack of interest. While the press coverage of 150,000 troops ensconced in the Middle East continues, so will the renegades who need media coverage for their “cause.”

“Democrats split on setting timetable for pulling US troops from Iraq”

Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution calling on the George W. Bush administration to give the US Congress a timetable for reaching its military objectives in Iraq and withdrawing American troops.

Another story from today--Feingold wants the “brave servicemen and women” to have an idea what’s going to happen in their future. If Bush actually wanted to extricate the US from Iraq, the discussion of timetables would be a productive start and present an appropriate public relations front, especially to those who would complicate the issue, like Iraqi insurgents. Our president most certainly does not want to give up the beach head he and his team of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice worked so hard to establish. The US bastion in Iraq allows for ultimate control of the flow of oil in the region, and of course the easier access to future incursions into bordering territories such as Iran, Syria, and other oil-rich areas.

An intelligent leader, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, depicts on his web site important proposals for getting the US out of Iraq. He sights the problems involved with arguments for and against, leading toward a conclusion of how to approach the issue of withdrawal. Kucinich openly asks for anyone reading his ideas to respond with options to help move the issue forward. Some of them make good sense:

· The Administration has made several predictions related to the actions of the insurgents over the course of the war:
1. The insurgency would die down once Saddam is captured. It didn't.
2. The insurgency would die down once an interim Iraqi governing board is put in place. It didn't.
3. The Insurgency would die down after the Iraqi elections. It didn't.

· It's great that they would reduce the attacks and let us bring the troops home without our casualties increasing too much. What happens later is up to the Iraqi people as it should have been from the start.

“Kennedy Lays Out Plan for Withdrawal from Iraq”

"We must learn from our mistakes in Vietnam and in Iraq…We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe the war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation."

"We thought in those early days in Vietnam that we were winning. We thought the skill and courage of our troops was enough. We thought that victory on the battlefield would lead to victory in war, and peace and democracy for the people of Vietnam," Kennedy said."In the name of a misguided cause, we continued in a war too long. We failed to comprehend the events around us. We did not understand that our very presence was creating new enemies and defeating the very goals we set out to achieve."

I included Kennedy’s remarks even though they are not current. They are from a speech he gave in January, 5 months ago. The point is that it’s getting late and action must take place in a hurry. The majority of Americans who believe we do not belong in Iraq must speak out loudly. If Bush is allowed to be complacent about the US position in Iraq, America’s future security and prosperity remain at stake. Money and blood will be spent when they could have been saved. The responsibility and the task, as always, are ours.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments signed Anonymous will not be published.