Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Americans, according to new polls, overwhelmingly oppose the idea of escalating our military presence in Iraq.
Barely over one-quarter approve of the job President Bush has done running the war.
The president lost majorities in both houses of Congress, largely because of the public's anguish over the bloody mishmash we've made of Iraq.
Think any of that matters to The Decider? Of course not.
Tonight, the president is expected to tell us that he's going to order tens of thousands of additional American troops into the meatgrinder that is Baghdad.
The president will say that this move will allow military commanders to accomplish what they haven't heretofore: restoring security to a city where car bombs go off around the clock and whose gutters are clogged with the corpses of innocents.
Odds are the president will tie a continuing American military presence to the same kind of timetables and benchmarks that his hand-picked man in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, rejected before.
Bush is sure to say that after careful consultation, he's moving forward with the support of the national security team and the generals on the ground in Iraq. (He won't say that's because he just purged all of the advisers and generals who think escalation is a bad idea.)
He'll use the word "surge," because that has such a nice, temporary connotation. But don't be fooled.
Bush is like a feverish gambler faced with an unending string of bad hands. He's certain he'll recoup his losses with a big score if he can just stay at the table.
Lest there be any confusion about Bush's timetable, it's useful to consider a new law, drafted with U.S. help, that's expected to be taken up by the Iraqi Parliament.
The law would open up Iraq's massive oil reserves to exploration and exploitation by western oil companies like Shell, Exxon and BP. It would grant the companies the right to pump Iraqi crude for 30 years, and keep a tidy 75 percent of the profits until they recoup their costs.
So much for the idea that Iraq's oil wealth should be used to help get a fledgling democratic government on its feet.
Venezuela and the Soviet Union are busy warning Big Oil to stand aside while they reassert control of their nations' mineral wealth. Other Middle Eastern nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia nationalized their oil reserves long ago.
The Bushiite oiligarchy's plan for Iraq's natural resources looks like it was drawn up on a napkin by a petroleum lobbyist.
Does anybody out there still think this was ever about weapons of mass destruction?
More to the point, does anyone think the Iraqi population is going to throw rose petals at this idea?
We can't simply turn our back on Iraq. Almost 23,000 Iraqi civilians died in 2006, 17,000 of them since the summer. Their blood is on our hands.
Cutesy Pottery Barn bromides ("You break it, you own it") seem hideously insufficient to describe our obligation now.
We created a nightmare. We have a responsibility to try to end it in a way that doesn't destroy the country.
If the president acknowledged this fact, if he expressed remorse for the havoc wrought by his administration's abject failure to maintain security during our occupation, it might give us some sense that he at least understands the tragic consequences of his actions.
It's safe to say that the president's "Damn the torpedoes" approach is not what the American people had in mind when they booted the sycophantic GOP majority in November.
The new Congress won't be so compliant. Democratic leaders have already voiced their concerns with the idea of an escalation, as have many Republicans, including Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott, R- Miss., as well as Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
Yet for all the post-election talk of bipartisanship, Bush seems just as immune to collaboration as he ever was.
Next week, the Senate intends to begin considering a non-binding resolution opposing Bush's new Iraq policy, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday.
The authorization for the use of military force Bush won from Congress in 2003 was based on a laundry list of falsified or discredited intelligence estimates. As long as it's in place, Bush has wide latitude to do as he sees fit, no matter how little the American people trust his performance or his judgment.
Given everything we've learned since that day, isn't it time for Congress to reconsider the blank check it wrote?
Some pundits are saying this escalation is the last card Bush has to play.
Don't bet on it. He's gambling with house money.
Theo Stein is an editorial writer for the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram and can be contacted at 791-6481 or:
tstein@pressherald.com
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
The President apparently believes that establishing civil order and public safety is a necessary first step to achieving a political solution, and the US armed forces are the only entity on earth with any hope of doing that. Some people apparently think that a political solution is possible amid chaotic violence and murder. Let's at least acknowledge that the President's position is reasonable even if we disagree with it.
If Iran and Syria are willing to help stop Iraqis from killing each other, why haven't they closed off their borders? Why are they funding and arming the "insurgents," many of whom are Iranians and Syrians?
For those who condemn the oil companies, is there anyone out there who is willing to develop Iraq's most valuable resource for free? I haven't heard Joe Kennedy offer to do it. Shouldn't the oil companies who have the ability and expertise to do the job get paid for doing it?
Since nationalization is a real danger in the third world, shouldn't they expect to recoup their expenses as quickly as possible? Wouldn't you if it were your business? Don't they have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to protect their investments?
For those who advocate a troop withdrawal -- sorry, redeployment -- please tell us what happens after that?report abuse
Do I believe Iran or Syria would help? They have made more overtures to us to help than we have to them. Of course, if you listen to Rush, or Hannity, or any of the other war-mongerers you wouldn't hear this.
Iran has made several gestures through the Swiss Embassy. Our reaction...tell the Swiss they are out of bounds passing along such messages. Or how about, the intelligence sharing that took place when we first went into Afghanistan. Iran shared significantly the intelligence they had on troop levels, positions, logistics of the Taliban. After all the Iranians very nearly had a war with them and Al Qeada due to the inroads the Taliban were trying to make into Iran. At that time, Iran offered to talk about all outstanding issues...support for Hezbollah, nuclear ambitions, mutual security, trade.
Listen to the war-mongerers and all you will hear is how evil they are, some talk of which is justified, but I'd encourage you to dig a little deeper. Unless of course you want a bigger war in the middle east.
Funny how liberals are accused of delighting in "watching the US body count grow" yet their critics are the ones calling for more war. Go figure. report abuse
Show all 16 comments
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.