OUR military is still staging arbitrary and ignorant raids on the Iraqi population. Our forces there haven't seen any substantial decrease. The mission is still bogged down in fighting the resistance; claiming as Bush did that there is some national interest in 'succeeding' in their perpetual defense of the increasingly independent and partisan Maliki regime as if it was some direct reflection of all of the rhetoric used by the Obama Pentagon to justify staying.
I think the folks who've beat those who've complained about business as usual in Iraq under Obama over the head with his rhetoric have essentially walked away from the pressure which compelled the politicians to move away from their support of the occupation in the first place.
It's all so convenient to go back to Obama's flowing rhetoric in announcing his withdrawal plan and insist that we WAIT and wait for the promised disengagement, but there has been virtually NO effort from those defenders of the Obama administration's Iraq policy and activity to hold them to account for even their own reasons for continuing the military operation there. All we get are those nebulous excuses about pottery barns and our supposed responsibility to secure some sort of pretty ending to America's anti-democratic use of force against the Iraqi population.
The Iraq occupation is still as immoral and wrong as it was before we put a Democrat in the White House. In effect, and until the promised reduction of force after the Iraqi 'elections', our military is still engaged in an abomination of humanity. It's hard for me to find any meaningful difference in the blithe way that abomination is being defended by Democrats from the manner in which the occupation was defended under the last administration.
Pointing to Obama's full embrace of Bush's cynical 'agreement' with the Maliki regime (forced through at the end of his presidency to enhance his 'legacy'), as evidence of a 'change' in Iraq policy, is an insult to our years of advocacy and activism against the illegal invasion and occupation.
It may not be as surprising, as I may think, though, to see the dumbfounded silence from defenders of Obama policy toward Iraq in response to the arrogant abrogations of the petty treaty in the persistent American command and control of our military forces in the continuing, collaterally deadly raids against the supposedly sovereign population. It has to burn, somewhere deep in the soul of their original opposition to the Bush regime's self-perpetuating militarism.
This morning's opportunistic raid and tragic killings by U.S. military forces was almost immediately met with charges of criminality by the Iraqi government and demands that those responsible stand accountable before the Iraqi courts; including two senior Iraqi commanders to be held accountable for their (illegal under the SOFA) role in allowing the unauthorized assault.
The military initially gave their standard defenses for the tragedy - which took the life of an innocent woman and resulted in the release later in the day of those detained in the raid and an apology from the U.S. command - citing an interest in capturing alleged 'financiers' of the Shiite resistance with 'ties to Iran'. Here's how the NYT described the raid and the resulting
clusterfuck:
According to the American military and witnesses, American troops arrived early Sunday at a house belonging to a local sheik, Ahmed Abdul Sada. The military’s statement said the troops opened fire when “an individual with a weapon came out of the home.”
“Forces assessed him to be hostile, and they engaged the man, killing him,” the American statement said. “During the engagement, a woman in the area moved into the line of fire and was also struck by gunfire.”
The American statement said that troops arrested six people, including Sheik Ahmed, suspected of belonging to the Mahdi Army and the Promise Day Brigade, both Shiite militias suspected of carrying out attacks against American and Iraqi forces.
By late afternoon, however, the men returned home. Sheik Ahmed said in an interview on Sunday evening that his wife, in a panic, had picked up a rifle when the Americans burst into their home in the middle of the night. “If the Americans had only knocked, we would have cooperated,” he said. “Instead they came from four corners.”
Along with the promise to withdraw, Obama has included in his justifications, much of the same nonsense as the last bunch about fighting 'terrorists' and 'defending' our interests' in Iraq that the last administration used as their own political cover through the elections to avoid ending the occupation and admitting the utter defeat and failure of Americans there to secure even many of their own imperialist interests and ambitions. It's unclear what the bottom line will be for the Obama administration in their pursuit of the same; albeit with better rhetoric and a more realistic prospect of some sort of disengagement from Iraq in the (near?) future.
What is our national interest in shooting innocent Iraqis dead on their doorstep?
What's clear is that, whatever rhetoric that's been offered to convince that we're ultimately leaving Iraq remains subordinate to the justifications for remaining engaged that have been cut-and-pasted from the Bush playbook. In fact, the two rationales (leaving eventually and defending our 'interests') are actually polar opposites. In order for one ambition to 'succeed', the other must be abandoned. To expect that sort of decisiveness from the prevaricating establishment (and their wistful support) which perpetuates the militarism in Iraq is, perhaps, a pipe dream, but, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still insist they make that ideological leap into action without delay.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
