Do we intend to stay in Iraq forever?
By Reed Hundt | bio
From: Politics
Iraq's National Security Adviser said that the overwhelming majority of American troops would be out in two years, and that by the end of this year the number would be below 100,000. So he effectively set a date for withdrawal (from his advance copy of the SOTU). That was, we had been told, a recipe for endangering our troops. We were told that we have to keep them in Iraq indefinitely in order to make them safer. This circular logic rolled through the mainstream media, was echoed faithfully in a Senate that doesn't have time for extended debate on anything (certainly not on the appointment of a radical to the Supreme Court). But, by contrast, in Iraq the reality of the American presence is being openly discussed. Here's the catch, however: this Administration presumably intends that the American presence in Iraq will never be reduced to zero. They wish to have one or more military bases in Iraq, holding the line against Iran, until all the oil is out of the Middle East and into the atmosphere (somewhere between 2050 to 2070, when the Gulf Stream will no longer run, and the Blue States will be uninhabitable, but I digress). Why can't this point -- our long-run presence in Iraq -- be discussed? The answer, in part, is that there is almost no institution in the United States now capable of conducting open and meaningful civil discourse. Every forum traditionally meant for extended discussion is guarded, hamstrung, eavesdropped, angered, frightened, mercenary, ill-informed, ill-attended, trivialized. Certainly the SOTU will give evidence to this assertion. My conclusion: Conversation in the blogworld is not a fringe activity; it is our best chance for preserving the original vision of reasoned debate that inspired our Founders to invent the United States.
Jan 31, 2006 -- 07:44:39 AM EST
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/31/74439/9483