Radical Chic

We should transition from being nation-builders
to nation-defenders.
But the nation we should be defending is our own
--Bob Beckel

I’ve had enough of watching
scenes of schizophrenic, egocentric
paranoic, prima donnas.
All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth
--All I Want is the Truth, John Lennon
___________

Top U.S. commander in Iraq General David Petraeus said last Thursday that Iraqi leaders have not made sufficient progress towards internal reconciliation. This downtick in enthusiasm was in contrast to his February report (Iraqi Leaders Not Making Sufficient Progress.)

Then, following the passage of laws on the budget, provincial elections and an amnesty for certain detainees, Petraeus had said, "(T)he passage of the three laws today showed that the Iraqi leaders are now taking advantage of the opportunity that coalition and Iraqi troopers fought so hard to provide."

General Petraeus should be advised that the passage of a law in Iraq is as meaningless as a mandate to love in a massage parlor. A law that can not be enforced is falderol.

In addition, the U.S. should be asking who benefits from these wondrous laws? Is it the American taxpayers picking up the tab and/or dying for this fiction?

"Petraeus credited both the mainly Sunni neighborhood patrols known as the Awakening and a cease-fire called by Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr with helping to bring down violence. The Awakening fighters include former insurgents who say they have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq, a largely homegrown Sunni group that Petraeus said is in communication with al-Qaeda leaders abroad. The United States is now paying 88,000 members of the Awakening $300 a month to take part in the neighborhood patrols."

So al-Sadr's not quite so radical now that it appears he is benefiting U.S. interests. He even gets strokes from the good General. This re-branding is a joke. In fact, this cleric owns the country; Petraeus is but a breeze blowing across the palace balcony.

Another joke: the U.S. bribing paying militiamen -- former Sunni insurgents -- $26.4 million a month to tote AK's on city streets. [Meanwhile, we can't figure if our own 200+ year old Constitution allows U.S. citizens to bear arms.]

Texas tea:

"Sunni fighters in the western province of Anbar who have joined the Awakening 'are waiting for the next opportunity,' not the next war, Petraeus asserted. 'What they want to do is get more closely linked with Baghdad so they can continue to benefit from the enormous oil revenue wealth which is pouring into this country.'"

Can I link with Baghdad for a cut? While their oil revenue flows, our tax dollars continue to foot their bills. This is like being on a really bad date, for there will be no quid pro quo; she just wants to eat dinner and be gone.

Meanwhile, no one is staunching our bleeding as a result of the petro price-gouging. For one example of the trickle-down effect, the average grocery tab rose 5% in 2007 and is expected to increase by a higher percentage in 2008. No one is remunerating me for being on the Awakening Council to this fact.

Who is drawing the connection between the real costs of this war and the suffering of the average American? There is no cause for joy at a bottomless bucket of handouts for Iraqis while the economic thumbscrews are tightened on hardworking taxpayers daily. My life is not a whit better for George W. Bush's Holy Land crusade; in fact, it is much the worse.

The U.S. is rupturing at the seams, and there are people who care about Baghdad? The chickenhawk crew opposes "handouts" to the neediest U.S. citizens yet has no problem putting Iraq on a 100-yr. dole. The flow of dollars continues and democracy with an iron fist flourishes, everywhere except into our wallets.

Who is fighting for the average American struggling to get through the month?

Yada, Yada

America is addicted to wars of distraction
--Barabara Ehrenreich

The majority of Americans, the ones who never elected you, are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction
--Michael Moore

The blind are always at war, always have been at war
--Blindness, Jose Saramago
________

The current blah, blah, blah concerning the Iraq War is just that--blather and neglect. We are talking about everything that is irrelevant--all of the particulars, the tactics, the strategies, the munitions--but nothing that really matters.

Yesterday Bush's Homeland Security adviser Townsend dished more of the same: "We've got them pinned down over there." And the Limbaughs of the world see no further terrorist activity in America and draw the connection that A results in B.

Unfortunately A (the U.S. invasion and occupation) results in lots of bees being released from the hive. And the folks we are pinning down are not the folks who initiated the 9-11 plane attack anyway. Al Qaida in Iraq is just a copycat spin-off group, generated in response to U.S. aggression in country. A bunch of groupies pledging homage to al Qaida National.

Why isn't Afghanistan being included in the dialog? The legitimacy of both wars is the key issue that needs to be rationally addressed and discussed.

Why are U.S. forces and dollars being expended in the Afghan mountains of madness and the Iraqi kitty litter box nation? Why are we there? The national dialog never clearly addresses this issue. Instead, we get bogged down in collateral, meaningless expressions, analysis and words. This talk does not alleviate the problem, which is an occupation which gains us naught, with no endgame.

Even those who see the futility and criminality of this action often get bogged down in the minutiae--the specifics of this weapon vs. that, this tactic vs. that, when the only correct focus is, we must leave, and how can we best effect that. Enough armchair quarterbacking.

Only Congress will end this mess, but they must face the facts squarely. The U.S. has no legitimate reason to occupy two Islamic countries in a world that is worlds away from Peoria, Ilinois, or any U.S. hometown. It just isn't right; all the side issues aside, nothing will legitimize this war.

The issues of Iraq border security, civil war, insurgency, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, security of Baghdad are all separate issues. The wheat must be separated from the chaff. Let the conversational ball drop into whatever court is pertinent, but that does not address the key issue. The only morally responsible action is withdrawal of U.S. forces from combat immediately.

U.S. forces are paid for by the U.S. taxpayers only to defend America from all enemies. The U.S. military is not responsible for the security of an Islamic country, or any country, other than America.

How is America safer if Baghdad is secured? Forget all the emotional words of GWB, just look at the realities. This war is not good for the American nation in any way, shape or form.

Forget the Iraqis and Afghanis; let's focus on the next country that should be targeted for democracy--the good old U.S. of A.