Hope Exists After 4 Years of War, 12 Years of Mismanagement

Already 4 Years?

Last year I remember when we came upon the 3rd anniversary of the War in Iraq and it hit me then to ask "how did it get to 3 years so quickly". It then dawned on me that with a rubber-stamp congress for the Republican president, they really had been sitting on their hands and letting the President and his right-hand yes-man Rumsfeld, run the war whichever way they wanted. The Democrats and anti-war Republicans could scream all they wanted, but they could just as easily be totally ignored. (This also explains why President Bush didn't need to use his veto pin until after the election on the stem cell bill six years later.) Some may say "So what! Even with the change in congress, the president as the Commander-in-Chief, can still implement and support his troop surge". That fact is true, but with a more balanced Congress, a strong Democratic House Leader such as Pelosi and a General such as Petraeus in charge in Iraq, there is a chance for setting a withdrawal / redeployment date by late summer. The reason being that General Petraeus has been very up front in saying that if the current troop surge, such as he had said was needed back in 2003, doesn't seem to be working by late this summer, he will need to tell his troops and the American public the plain truth and react accordingly. Let's see if they follow through with these statements now, after 4 years of war.

Surge or Redeployment, does it matter?

The neocons continue to tell the tale that "If we set a date for redeployment, it tells the insurgents what we are going to do and they will set back and wait. All hell will then break loose when the US withdraws." Why don't they also understand that with the troop surge, the insurgents may attempt the same approach. With the new US troops arriving in Baghdad, the insurgents could withdraw and make it appear that the surge is working. After the US troops are then withdrawn, the insurgents could spring to life and achieve the same results as they would if a withdrawal date had been set. It is already known that the "terrorist al Qaeda in Iraq", that we are supposed to be fighting in the "War on Terror" is a very small part of the current civil war. (Estimated at less than 3-5% of the insurgents.) The real conflict in Iraq is between the Sunni and the Shiite tribes and the US troops are continually caught in the middle. Since the Sunni's boycotted the Iraq elections, most of the new Iraqi government, their Army, police and the overall Iraqi population is Shiite. With their charter to "train the Iraqi Military and the Police," the US troops by default, are forced to support the Shiite more than the Sunni. This situation is demonstrated by the Sunni group that attacked one of the few Sunni mosques that was supporting US troops. In addition, the highest ranking Sunni in the new Iraqi Government, deputy prime minister, Salam al-Zubaie was attacked by a suicide bomber during a prayer service at his home. He was mortally wounded, six Iraqi's were killed and 15 injured. Why is it so hard to understand that all the US troops are doing today is getting between two tribes that have been at war since the 6th century? The US should remove themselves from the internal Iraq conflicts and concentrate on training and trying to keep outside influences from supporting one Iraqi tribe over another. The reason for this outside interest is of course, Iraq's oil reserves as a major jewel that is coveted by many outside countries and regions. And their border neighbor Iran, another oil-rich country with a predominately Shite population would love to win the hearts and minds of the large Iraqi Shite population. One must also note that both Iran and Iraq are in a region surrounded mainly by devout Sunni countries.

There is Hope:

The good news is that the public has started to see and understand the depth of the mismanagement by the current administration. With regard to Iraq, very little blame can be placed on the military. They have only followed the orders from their supreme commander. (Unfortunately, most of the early Generals that disagreed with the administration were forced into early retirement by Sec/Def Donald Rumsfeld.) The public is also seeing what happens when a ruling party decides to not allow or install any oversight of their on-going activities. Even though the Democrats have just a small congressional majority today, the key committees are now under new leadership and those new leaders are asking for accountability from the past 12 years of Republican management. In the current issue of the firing of eight US attorneys, it is a perfect example for showing how political decisions with this administration are more important than legal ones. The argument that the President can authorize the firing of the US Attorneys at his discretion is correct. However, with all the statements that have been found to be untrue as to why they were fired, this is a reasonable cause for obtaining the straight story. Unfortunately, the president is now trying to make a joke of the Congress by offering his staff to be interviewed; not under oath, without any transcripts taken, no interviews in public and the Whitehouse is to set the interview agendas. There seems to be no understanding that with all these restrictions, the administration appears to the nation to be guilty of something, even before they start talking. This bazaar alternative was presented by Press Secretary, Tony Snow as a "reasonable compromise".

The big issue is that it took 12 years to get to the current basement level we are at in Congress and it won't happen overnight for getting it back to a more reasonable, workable bipartisan organization. From now on, it's going to take patience, patience and more patience and it will be an on-going conflict. As is normal, it will never be perfect, but we've a long way to go to get the US out of the hands of a select few to a government based on a willingness to compromise for what's best for every citizen.