Melissa Ryan at CT Local Politics responds to David Yepsen's article on Dodd and Iraq:
When it comes to Iraq Dodd hasn’t disappointed. Dodd’s constituents in Connecticut know this. Bloggers across the country know this. I’m glad to see that Iowa journalists realize it too. We still have four months to go until the Caucus. Dodd has an uphill battle ahead of him, but it’s one worth fighting. As it stands now Dodd is our best hope for ending the war.
Comments
If we get out now then what will happen later. They might come to the US and fght with us and we will not be ready for then the what? I think that we should stay in Iraq a little while longer and I know how it is being over there my friend just came back and gose back on the 9th. My dad was also in the navy for 9 years. I realy, realy think we should give me one reason why e should come home?
There is no military solution for us in Iraq -- we are stuck in a civil war. The Iraq war has made us less safe at home and less secure abroad. It has turned Iraq into a petri dish for terrorists and distracted us from the important job of fighting Al Qaeda, the people who actually attacked us on 9/11/01. Ending our involvement in Iraq's civil war is the most likely way to create a political environment needed for there to be political success there.
OK. I will grant you that the U.S. is involved in a civil conflict in Iraq. But, what's not being admitted is that the conflict has been fomented by the U.S. military for the purpose of justifying its continued presence under the auspices of the United Nations, until the Iraqis cry "uncle" and grant our request to keep and maintain the mega bases that were the original goal of the invasion.
Considering their objective (to gain a foothold for our military on the Arabian Peninsula), the Bush Two administration was actually correct in not wanting to seek UN approval of the invasion because it's that approval which threw a monkey wrench into the plan to privatize the Iraqi economy without bothering to set up a sovereign government.
If we didn't have compelling testimony from former CIA operatives that the opposition to Saddam Hussein was provided with guidance and technical expertise in the construction and detonation of car bombs (clearly terroristic behavior), the current story line about Iranian responsibility for improvised explosives might be more believable. But, as it stands, the only logical conclusion we have to reach is that the only thing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan had in common was that they were trained by the CIA.
As we review the scope and efficacy of the U.S. Constitution, I think we need to reconsider the interpretation that its limitations on the behavior of the agents of government only apply when the targets of the behavior are Americans and that, conversely, when the targets are foreign, there are no limits as to the depraved behavior that is permitted.
The moral standards incorporated into the Constitution should apply regardless of the characteristics of the persons with whom our agents of government interact. Indeed, that was the rationale for the argument that American citizens acting abroad should be exempt from the international court--that our legal system would be sufficient to hold them to account. Now, it turns out, because our criminal laws do not extend to foreign soils, crimes perpetrated by American contractors in Iraq are exempt from prosecution. This is unacceptable.
I can't speak to what the Bush administration or parts of the executive branch have planned for a long-term military presence in Iraq. I can say definitively that Chris Dodd is opposed to permanent US bases inside Iraq and will have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- something that John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton refused to commit to.
Who's "they"?
Right now, President Bush's administration, most congressional Republicans, some congressional Democrats and all the talking head pundits who spin Republican propaganda are telling Americans two different things: First, if we don't fight Unspecified Enemy X (a.k.a. "terrorists") in Iraq, Unspecified Enemy X will get on boats or on planes and start warfare on Main Street, USA, so our military should continue to occupy a foreign country that poses no capability of delivering nuclear or chemical weapons to the US. Second, "terrorists" are *already* in America; to avoid another attack we must do nothing while many legislators of both parties restrict our civil rights and start monitoring legal, private activity - which of course we should want them to do, because otherwise the terrorists win, and... hey, you're not a terrorist sympathizer, are you?
So whether "they" are here, "they" are on their way here, or "they" are possibly on their way here, during times of occupation apparently the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions have the permanency of chalk on a blackboard.
I would ask you, Anonymous, and everyone else who poses the "just give it more time" canard - what specific benchmarks or goals do you think will be met with a continued troop presence in Iraq? And how much time would you allocate to this last-ditch challenge? How many more Iraqi lives should we sacrifice? The Allies in World War II beat the Axis powers in less time than we've spent in Iraq. When approximately 100,000 people are fleeing the country each month, when over 650,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, when Americans traveling to the country to understand what's going on can't even leave the coalition-force occuped areas (green zone) in Baghdad because violence is so ubiquitous, it's time to question the efficacy of a military strategy. Considering the very people who insist we "stay the course" are the ones who've been wrong about every aspect of this war since the start, from our troops being welcomed with flowers, to the war paying for itself, I say it's time to stop trusting liars and bring back common sense to our foreign policy. Get out. Now.