Okay, already. I know you are not going to read Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. Hell, I doubt that even W. is going to read it. After all, it’s 38 pages and no pictures.
I myself had difficulty getting through the executive summary. But when I got to page 8, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Here’s the part that got to me:
➢ If we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, Iraq will become:
• A safe haven for terrorists as Afghanistan once was, only this time in some of the world’s most strategic territory, with vast natural resources to exploit and to use to fund future attacks.
• A country where oppression – and the brutal imposition of inhumane practices, such as those of the Taliban in Afghanistan – is pervasive.
• A failed state and source of instability for the entire Middle East, with all the attendant risks and incalculable costs for American security and prosperity.
(Weird formatting and italics in the original.)
What we know so far is that Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist, and he was a son-of-a-bitch, which is how he was able to keep the terrorists out of Iraq. That's the same Iraq that we are told, is “in some of the world’s most strategic territory, with vast natural resources to exploit and to use to fund future attacks.”
How do I know the part about terrorists not in Saddam’s Iraq? Well, unlike some people I knoW, I actually read the Presidential Daily Briefing whenever I get a chance.
On September 21, 2001, W’s daily briefing said that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks 10 days earlier, and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.
Well, that was then, and this is now. Al Qaeda is operating freely in Iraq, if you are to believe W. And why wouldn’t you?
You may wonder why I accuse Bush of not reading his memos. Well, after Bush received the Sept. 21st memo, he continued to push the Saddam -Al Qaeda connection to the point where most Americans thought that Saddam was personally involved in the 9-11 attacks. It just seems to me that accusing him of not reading the memo is more charitable than calling him a lying sack of shit.
How is Iraq doing on the human rights in Iraq front? In Iraq, (as contrasted to the rest of the Arab world) women had achieved a measure of equality. The burka of the Taliban is making a comeback in Shi’ite areas of Iraq, thanks to our removal of Saddam.
Look, I am no fan of tyranny, but tyranny is the enemy of instability. As Congressman Jack Murtha took pains to point out, oil production, electricity generation, clean water availability, industrial output and every other measure of quality of life in Iraq are all below pre-war levels. Not so good for the whole stability thing.
Here's the point: The invasion of Iraq has produced the very conditions identified by the National Security Council as “failure.”
Let me tell you about Martin van Creveld. He is a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, the author of Transformation of War and the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers. Here's what he had to say about this war:
For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.
That’s quite a trick, W. The debate has moved on from whether or not you are the worst president in history to whether or not you are the dumbest leader in the last millennium. Think about it.
"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"
No comments:
Post a Comment