The American people have said they want us to get OUT of Iraq. And that does NOT mean, *Oh, Except for the Special Forces and the bases and other permanent structures that will keep United States Military there (Just Not Combat Forces)". Right? Or are you one that buys into the idea that the United States should have bases in other people's countries all around the world? The We Are Imperialist United States, Not a Democracy, notion.
Yesterday I read that the Democrats have caved in to Bush and given him the money with NO timeline attached, although I sure haven't seen any announcements to that effect yet that explain WHY the Democratic party, which knows the people want us OUT of Iraq and want the Democratic party to PUSH BACK against Bush, wouldn't be doing that. (Although I know that Chet Edwards already is agreeable with doing what Bush wants). Then, this morning I saw this article that talks about what happens post-
President Bush and his senior military and foreign policy advisers are beginning to discuss a "post-surge" strategy for Iraq that they hope could gain bipartisan political support. The new policy would focus on training and advising Iraqi troops rather than the broader goal of achieving a political reconciliation in Iraq, which senior officials recognize may be unachievable within the time available.
The revamped policy, as outlined by senior administration officials, would be premised on the idea that, as the current surge of U.S. troops succeeds in reducing sectarian violence, America's role will be increasingly to help prepare the Iraqi military to take greater responsibility for securing the country.
Can somebody tell me what would be DIFFERENT about that? How many times has the Bush administration trotted out that we have to train up the troops to *stand up*? Why does America have to have a role in what's going on in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded a sovereign country and trashed it, that makes it our ROLE to stay there and tell them what to do? The writer, David Ignatius says "help the Iraqi military to take greater responsibility...." blah blah blah. How completely odious and paternalistic and insulting.
Oh, and Washington is bringing up the Baker-Hamilton report again, that Bush so quickly dismissed.
Here's a summary of the policy ideas the officials said are under discussion:
· Train Iraqi security forces and support them as they gain sufficient intelligence, logistics and transport capability to operate independently.
· Provide "force protection" for U.S. troops who remain in Iraq.
· Continue Special Forces operations against al-Qaeda, in the hope of gradually reducing suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks on the Iraqi government. "That's the accelerator for sectarian violence," said one official
· Focus U.S. activities on the two big enemies of stability and democracy in Iraq -- al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed sectarian militias.
· Maintain the territorial integrity and independence of Iraq.
Really. And that's supposed to happen because WE are still in charge, still occupiers of the country, and they'd be *independent*? WHO is this supposed to fool if not the American public?????
· Ensure the near-term continuation of democracy in Iraq. That means supporting top-down reconciliation through a new oil law, new rules to make it easier for former Baath Party members to play a role in the new Iraq, provincial elections and changes to the Iraqi constitution to meet Sunni demands. It also means support for bottom-up reconciliation, such as the recent push against al-Qaeda by Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province, and recent peace feelers from radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
I saw that two of the top leaders were (or are) in the United States, one because he has lung cancer, and other sick from something else and visiting a fat farm. One of them wants the United States to sign a SOFA. That would, of course, mean that we would STILL BE IN IRAQ but the fool-the-public would be because "Iraq Wants Us There To Help Protect Them". Pfffttttttttt.
The wild cards in this new effort to craft a bipartisan Iraq policy are the Republican and Democratic leaders, President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They both say they want a sustainable, effective Iraq policy, but each is deeply entrenched in a partisan version of what that policy should be. America is in a nosedive in Iraq. Can these two leaders share the controls enough that Iraq will become a U.S. project, rather than George Bush's war?
Why in the WORLD should Iraq become a US Project? It IS Bush's little war adventure and for the United States to REMAIN as occupiers, but in some different role, is flat out WRONG.