Iraqi blogger Riverbend offers some year-end commentary: “My only conclusion is that the Americans want to withdraw from Iraq, but would like to leave behind a full-fledged civil war because it wouldn’t look good if they withdraw and things actually begin to improve, would it?
“Here we come to the end of 2006 and I am sad. Not simply sad for the state of the country, but for the state of our humanity, as Iraqis. We’ve all lost some of the compassion and civility that I felt made us special four years ago. I take myself as an example. Nearly four years ago, I cringed every time I heard about the death of an American soldier. They were occupiers, but they were humans also and the knowledge that they were being killed in my country gave me sleepless nights. Never mind they crossed oceans to attack the country, I actually felt for them.
“Had I not chronicled those feelings of agitation in this very blog, I wouldn’t believe them now. Today, they simply represent numbers. 3000 Americans dead over nearly four years? Really? That’s the number of dead Iraqis in less than a month. The Americans had families? Too bad. So do we. So do the corpses in the streets and the ones waiting for identification in the morgue.
“Is the American soldier that died today in Anbar more important than a cousin I have who was shot last month on the night of his engagement to a woman he’s wanted to marry for the last six years? I don’t think so.
“Just because Americans die in smaller numbers, it doesn’t make them more significant, does it?”
Yes, I feel sorry for the Iraqi people. I read Iraqi blogs (my favorite: http://astarfrommosu…) and believe they should be for the people interested in world events. I can’t understand why Bluemassgroup that seems to deal with Democratic Party issues in Massachusetts need quote one.
<
p>
Certainly the Republican Administration, after a brilliant military campaign, collapsed in their ability to manage the civil affairs of the occupied country. Yes, the Democratic Party should exploit this failure. Responsibly and intelligently.
<
p>
I hate to see Democrats shooting themselves in the foot again. For years the Party has opposed the current Administration with the proposal that more “boots on the ground” were needed in Iraq. Now, with the Administration putting more “boots on the ground”, the Party doesn’t take credit, but threatens to cut the soldier’s budget. What kind of strategy is this?
<
p>
Negativism.
<
p>
Even Senator Kerry, obviously still in his Vietnam mindset, had to back away from a negative joke he made toward soldiers on duty in Iraq. While this negativism worked in the Vietnam War, I’m afraid it isn’t going to work now. The Party seems to have the same strategists that were used in the Vietnam era.
<
p>
Let’s come up with positive solutions.
Believe that the Bush administration is even remotely capable of coming up with a “positive” solution? An administration that has not gotten one single thing right in Iraq?
<
p>
Iraq had WMD’s. Oops
We would be greeted as liberators. Ummm yea about that
The war would maybe last six months. I guess umm…our bad?
Iraqi reconstruction would pay for the war. Well, maybe not.
<
p>
Democrats were elected to do, among other things, provide in your face smash mouth opposition to this administration. And when every reasonable human being with military expertise in this country says that the “surge” is a bad idea, you better believe that democrats will oppose it.
Answer: It is a wise strategy.
<
p>
The problem is that an increase of 20,000 or 30,000 is painfully insufficient. If you recall, Bush ran in 2000 against “nation building”. But coming off the experiences in Bosnia and Kosovo, the U.S. military was learning how to do nation building. The experts involved in that said that Iraq would require upwards of 500,000 troops in 2003. No doubt more are needed now, as more are needed in Afghanistan. Invading Iraq successfully required more allies or a draft.
<
p>
Adding 20,000 to 30,000 now is simply insufficient, though. It is just sending more of our people into the meat grinder without accomplishing a thing. Democrats in Congress are rightly skeptical.
<
p>
Two things one might add: (1) This President has gotten almost everything wrong about Iraq. (List provided on request.) (2) When he does talk about “plans”, he talks in airy generalities: he never talks about specific Iraqi factions, specific Iraqi cities, or the specific interests of different parts of the country. Instead, he talks in the generalized pablum of “terrorism” and “democracy”. As we have been in Iraq for almost four years without a plan bigger than a sound bite, there is no reason to think that the next plan will include that crucial ingredient of a plan — planning.
Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to further escalation in Iraq.
Yeah, Democrats are really hurting themselves by not hitching a ride on that wagon.
Sadly, actions speak louder than words. As the Republicans, under the guise of security, takes away more Constitutional rights and guarantees, the Democrats just look on or participate. Neither party shows anything more than contempt for the citizen. Is it any wonder that either side just employs a negative soundbite? They believe the citizens of this country are just a rabble that cannot think beyond a soundbite. Are they right?
<
p>
It is with little wonder that so many people look at both parties as different faces of the same coin. Neither stands for any philosophy.
<
p>
Sometimes it just gets a little funny. To show that he wants to do something, Congressman Frank (very quite during the Foley scandal), recently expressed his righteous indignation at the vacating CEO of Home Depot severance plan. While a matter for Home Depot stockholders, Mr. Frank brought it to the public’s attention as a Federal Case. Mr. Frank made no mention of convicted mail fraud ex-convict, Dan Rostenkowski, getting a federal pension of $126,000/year of taxpayer money. What was that about cleaning one’s own house first?
<
p>
Just send out the soundbite, the voters will never catch on and we’ll have these jobs forever!