In Iraq, Without Options

[wabeewoman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56304-2004Apr6.html

"One recent poll shows that near-plurality of Americans now favors our leaving Iraq. But precisely because this was not a war we had to fight, just up and leaving would be politically and morally duplicitous. We wrested control of Iraq when we did not have to, and leaving it to its own devices as sectarian violence grows worse would be a dismal end. The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone."

Ah yes, we should all point out how brave our war president is. Now and was on 9/11. And while he vacations in Crawford, Iraq burns and our soldiers die...

[bemildred]

1. WaPo can bite me.

It is not "sectarian violence", it is a war of national
liberation to throw out the hated imperialist invader.
That's what the Iraqis call it, and they are not fighting
each other. It's nice, of course, that they have figured
out that George needs to be removed.

[rwenos]

2. C'mon

"they're not fighting each other."

Not much. No, there's a different reason this war is stupid: Our government has plunged us in the middle of a civil war.

It's beginning to sound a lot like Vietnam in, about, 1966, eh?

[bemildred]

4. Vietnam was not a civil war either.

They tried to pretend it was, to be sure.
They are fighting us, and we are not Iraqis.
They would LIKE to have it be a civil war, because
then we could be peacemakers, but it ain't so.

Edit: otherwise, '66 is close enough.

[rwenos]

7. But . . .

It appears to me that the Kurds are buddying up to us Yanks, who rid them of Saddam.

But the Sunni's and Shias are on a collision course, and their hatred of US is the only thing keeping the lid on -- semi.

I'm saying the same thing as you, in a different way. US troops are certainly the target, but only because our troops stand in the way of the civil war they want to have.

THAT's what made it seem like Vietnam in 1966 -- two elites who want sovereignty over the same peasantry, occupying the same land.

How's that not a civil war?

[bemildred]

8. If they actually start a civil war,

then I will agree that a civil war is going on.

Right now it is speculation, and self-serving speculation
at that, to assume that they really want to kill each other and
we are just in the way.

The Kurds have just been invited to join in on other side BTW,
stay tuned to see what comes to pass there.

[The Traveler]

3. Perhaps the neo cons

Will learn from the experience if a withdrawl is forced ...

Nah. They never learn.

[bemildred]

5. They will not give up foreign adventuring willingly.

That would mean dealing with domestic political issues,
like health care, and no excuses for doing nothing.

[The Traveler]

6. Hmmm ... I concurr ... which leads us back inexorably to

WashPo ... BITE ME!!!
:argh:

[bemildred]

9. Heh.

:thumbsup: