Iraq: Politicians Talk while Soldiers Die
Robert Fantina
February 13, 2007
While President Bush gleefully and optimistically sends over 20,000 Americans to the hellish quagmire he has created in Iraq, Congress ineffectually argues the merits of one of several ‘non-binding’ resolutions opposing this ‘surge.’ In the meantime, American and Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying, and the frustration of the citizens of America and other nations grows as they watch the unfolding of this tragedy of errors.
Comparing Iraq to the American imperial misadventure in Vietnam nearly four decades ago has almost become a national pastime. Escalating casualties paralleled by troop 'augmentation;' mounting opposition in the halls of Congress and the streets of America; the economy at home being drained while that of Iraq is in a complete shambles: without using the specific word ‘Iraq’ one could think the discussion concerned a history lesson on Vietnam.
Congress waited untold numbers of years, and seemed to ignore the funerals of nearly 60,000 Americans before pulling the plug on one of the greatest mistakes in U.S. history. By that time, in addition to the human tragedy experience by America, the fields of Vietnam were stained with the blood of nearly 2,000,000 of that nation’s citizens. It is a horror that further blemishes the bloody reputation of America.
The Democratic-controlled House and Senate are now bogged down, not in determining which of several basically-worthless resolutions opposing Mr. Bush's 'surge' is most acceptable, but even if they should be debated. The minority GOP in the Senate initially managed to block debate, proving once more that the Republicans are not particularly interested in such trivialities as free speech. And while this useless dickering continues, and members of Congress issue statements to the press and hear the pleasant sounds of their most indignant voices played over and over for their loyal constituents, Americans, Iraqis and others suffer and die needlessly in America’s latest imperial disgrace.
Mr. Bush continually implies that opposition to the war equates to lack of support for the men and women fighting it. One must wonder about his definition of ‘supporting the troops.’ Many families have had to purchase body armor for their loved ones serving in Iraq, using their own money to do so. They, not Mr. Bush, are supporting the troops. Desperate soldiers sift through garbage dumps for scrap metal to protect their vehicles from bombs and gunfire, while Paul Bremmer, administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (he ran Iraq when it was officially occupied by the U.S.), loses at least $8 billion. Were Mr. Bush intent on supporting the troops, that lost money could have provided significant protection for vehicles in Iraq. Countless soldiers have been standing in line to board a plane in Baghdad, ready to head for home and safety after completing their mortally dangerous tours of duty, only to be pulled out of line and told that their tours are being extended. Their anguished, tearful telephone calls to loved ones who have suffered the worst possible anxiety, and thought they were on the brink of being reunited with their loved ones, can only be imagined. Such pulling out of the rug from underneath the soldier does not seem to constitute ‘supporting the troops.’
Yet in Mr. Bush’s view, anyone who suggests cutting off funding for this war, and perhaps redirecting it to some other area of the world, like New Orleans, is undermining the morale of the troops and emboldening the ‘enemy.’ It could be argued that viewing the soldiers as expendable commodities in no need of any special protection, and with whom agreements made can be arbitrarily violated, shows the ‘enemy’ the disdain with which the government holds them. Likewise, the soldiers themselves cannot be unaware of this cavalier attitude. It is no wonder that morale is down, and desertions are up.
That the lessons of the November 2006 election have been lost on the Republicans is not surprising; they still control the powerful albeit chaotic White House. But the apparent denseness of the Democratic majority is astounding. Having been returned to Congressional power in an election widely seen as a referendum on the war, a concept recognized by even most Republicans in their more lucid moments, one would think they would seize the moment and cut off funding for the war beyond what is necessary for the safe evacuation of American and Coalition soldiers. Yet looking forward to the 2008 election seems more important than the lives of American soldiers. A great fear that any statement they make now may, in two years, be used to demonstrate that they were ‘soft on terror,’ or ‘weak on America’s defenses,’ paralyzes them.
Is this the best that America has to offer? Empty slogans and hollow words, ‘non-binding’ resolutions and political rhetoric, debates about whether or not to have a debate, red state – blue state, “I-voted-for-the-war-and-now-I’m-sorry’ politicians – all carrying on in the comfort and safety of Washington, D.C. while more and more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered.
One can only look in fearful anticipation toward the future of the United States. A bumbling, incompetent president and a spineless Congress would be dangerous under any circumstances. But add an over-inflated ego, a dishonest ‘decider’ who calls himself a ‘war president,’ a lust for oil, and an election that empowered an opposition that refuses to oppose, and the recipe for disaster is complete.
Comparing Iraq to the American imperial misadventure in Vietnam nearly four decades ago has almost become a national pastime. Escalating casualties paralleled by troop 'augmentation;' mounting opposition in the halls of Congress and the streets of America; the economy at home being drained while that of Iraq is in a complete shambles: without using the specific word ‘Iraq’ one could think the discussion concerned a history lesson on Vietnam.
Congress waited untold numbers of years, and seemed to ignore the funerals of nearly 60,000 Americans before pulling the plug on one of the greatest mistakes in U.S. history. By that time, in addition to the human tragedy experience by America, the fields of Vietnam were stained with the blood of nearly 2,000,000 of that nation’s citizens. It is a horror that further blemishes the bloody reputation of America.
The Democratic-controlled House and Senate are now bogged down, not in determining which of several basically-worthless resolutions opposing Mr. Bush's 'surge' is most acceptable, but even if they should be debated. The minority GOP in the Senate initially managed to block debate, proving once more that the Republicans are not particularly interested in such trivialities as free speech. And while this useless dickering continues, and members of Congress issue statements to the press and hear the pleasant sounds of their most indignant voices played over and over for their loyal constituents, Americans, Iraqis and others suffer and die needlessly in America’s latest imperial disgrace.
Mr. Bush continually implies that opposition to the war equates to lack of support for the men and women fighting it. One must wonder about his definition of ‘supporting the troops.’ Many families have had to purchase body armor for their loved ones serving in Iraq, using their own money to do so. They, not Mr. Bush, are supporting the troops. Desperate soldiers sift through garbage dumps for scrap metal to protect their vehicles from bombs and gunfire, while Paul Bremmer, administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (he ran Iraq when it was officially occupied by the U.S.), loses at least $8 billion. Were Mr. Bush intent on supporting the troops, that lost money could have provided significant protection for vehicles in Iraq. Countless soldiers have been standing in line to board a plane in Baghdad, ready to head for home and safety after completing their mortally dangerous tours of duty, only to be pulled out of line and told that their tours are being extended. Their anguished, tearful telephone calls to loved ones who have suffered the worst possible anxiety, and thought they were on the brink of being reunited with their loved ones, can only be imagined. Such pulling out of the rug from underneath the soldier does not seem to constitute ‘supporting the troops.’
Yet in Mr. Bush’s view, anyone who suggests cutting off funding for this war, and perhaps redirecting it to some other area of the world, like New Orleans, is undermining the morale of the troops and emboldening the ‘enemy.’ It could be argued that viewing the soldiers as expendable commodities in no need of any special protection, and with whom agreements made can be arbitrarily violated, shows the ‘enemy’ the disdain with which the government holds them. Likewise, the soldiers themselves cannot be unaware of this cavalier attitude. It is no wonder that morale is down, and desertions are up.
That the lessons of the November 2006 election have been lost on the Republicans is not surprising; they still control the powerful albeit chaotic White House. But the apparent denseness of the Democratic majority is astounding. Having been returned to Congressional power in an election widely seen as a referendum on the war, a concept recognized by even most Republicans in their more lucid moments, one would think they would seize the moment and cut off funding for the war beyond what is necessary for the safe evacuation of American and Coalition soldiers. Yet looking forward to the 2008 election seems more important than the lives of American soldiers. A great fear that any statement they make now may, in two years, be used to demonstrate that they were ‘soft on terror,’ or ‘weak on America’s defenses,’ paralyzes them.
Is this the best that America has to offer? Empty slogans and hollow words, ‘non-binding’ resolutions and political rhetoric, debates about whether or not to have a debate, red state – blue state, “I-voted-for-the-war-and-now-I’m-sorry’ politicians – all carrying on in the comfort and safety of Washington, D.C. while more and more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered.
One can only look in fearful anticipation toward the future of the United States. A bumbling, incompetent president and a spineless Congress would be dangerous under any circumstances. But add an over-inflated ego, a dishonest ‘decider’ who calls himself a ‘war president,’ a lust for oil, and an election that empowered an opposition that refuses to oppose, and the recipe for disaster is complete.