Tuesday, September 4, 2007

When it comes to resolve...

There were about three contradictory statements being had today regarding Iraq. CNN, "Your World Today" showed us a GW making a "surprise(!)" visit to Iraq to pump up the troops with the usual propaganda that he also likes to dish out by the bucketfuls to American civilians. Starting with the "Washington politicians" (Earth to Bush, aren't you a Washington politician?) And going on to discuss the eventual draw down of troops from a position of strength and success (GAO to Bush, but that hasn't happened, yet.) Instead of fear or failure (make that GW's fear of being seen as a failure.) By way of the preceding, GW has managed to be a spectacular failure through out his lifetime.

Then on to Rosa Brooks, with a republished editorial (Spokesman-Review, 4 September 2007) originally printed in the LA Times. Who discusses at depth what amounts to failure already existing in Iraq.

And finally, a letter published to the Roundtable on the same day as Professor Brooks editorial was republished. Rick Melanson of Spokane, Washington buys by the bucketfuls, all of GW's propaganda about Iraq. In short, it is some future event, but not now, that disasters await Iraqis and Iraq if we "leave prematurely." If we lose our resolve, we deliver Iraq to Al Qaeda.

The Cold War with the fast fading into the distance of history Soviet Union, ended more than a decade ago. It ended abruptly with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the same domino theory rhetoric has since been applied to the Middle East and thus the threat it poses (should Al Qaeda gain the upper hand in Iraq) to the west. However, as also found on CNN "Your World Today" (CNN International), Pakistanis were slaughtered by suicide bombers who attacked a bus. Denmark arrested as terrorist suspects a group of young Middle Eastern men who had bomb making materials. Our presence in Iraq has not prevented terrorism from taking place elsewhere in the Middle East or in the west. We do in fact fight them here, there and everywhere, not just in Iraq.

So, a reality check for those who lap up bucketfuls of White House propaganda; it isn't some "future event" that Al Qaeda poses a threat if we "fail in Iraq." Factually, we already did! It is now that Al Qaeda poses a threat. Where terrorism is having considerable success in Pakistan (supposedly an ally in our GWOT), it is because Al Qaeda is attacking in order to destabilize yet another of our "allies." As was certainly the case with Turkey (during the Iraqi invasion), Saudi Arabia and Spain (during the later stages of the war). Indonesia (with an eye to killing Australian tourists, Australia, also an ally). Great Britain (one of the principle architects of the invasion of Iraq). We did not contain or constrain Al Qaeda as Lebanon was to find out (Al Qaeda inspired militants in one of their Palestinian refugee camps). There is no "domino theory" for the Middle East. Because there is no one central location for terrorism to take root in. We are all at risk, no matter what we do or not do in Iraq. And this country will be at risk, if we don't have the resources for successfully countering terrorism on the home front.

September 11, 2001. A CIA internal review post that tragic day targeted upper officials for not doing all they could to prevent the tragedy from taking place. That is, officials such as Tenet. But since it is the executive branch that runs the agency, well, Tenet can only be considered part of the problem, the rest lies with GW who thought that terrorism was Clinton's problem and not his. Considering how little he was actually prepared to address terrorism before September of 2001 and only days before the horrible terrorist attack. We are still just as vulnerable in 2007 as we were in 2001. As discussed above, Iraq hasn't improved our circumstances. The anniversary of September 11 is fast approaching. And GW spends wads of taxpayers' moolah and refuses to get real with the American military in Iraq, televised for American consumption back home. The more we throw good money after bad in Iraq, the less we have to spend countering the continuing threat of terrorism on the home front.

No comments: