Dishonor and Swine

Since the Rethuglicans managed to avoid a resolution (non-binding) in the US Senate that would have put every Senator on record, exposing whether they approve or disapprove of sending additional troops to Iraq, one has to wonder about their lack of humanity. Seemingly more concerned with scoring political points and avoiding embarrassment for the Bush administration, they have proudly ascended the sacrificial altar, proclaiming their strong disregard for the lives of American service personnel. We cannot debate the “surge”, nor the continued conflict, nor voice any disagreement. We must only carry on. The illogic of their position is superbly illustrated by an op-ed in the Washington Post today by retired general William Odom where he lists the top myths about Iraq:

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences.

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

So, to the amoral Rethuglican Senators and their Kool-Aid drinking swine supporter – Sen. Joe Lieberman, here is a question. As you all continue to support the needless death of brave Americans who are fighting in a war based on lies – how many of the Americans who have died since your successful avoidance of accountability will you honor by standing before their families to tell them that the death of their loved one was for a noble cause?

Not one I'll bet.
Posted on The Human Stain