::::::::
By Jay EsbeWe have to "cut and run" from Iraq. As quickly as possible. We have to "cut and run" because of the following facts:
#1. There is no evidence that we can "win". None.
#2. The United States has been tied down in Iraq longer that it took to defeat Germany and Japan in World War two. That is a fact.
#3. The level of violence has NOT decreased, but increased. Consistently and dramatically. That is another fact.
#4. This is also not a war; it's a post invasion occupation who's resistors are within the general population, unidentifiable and eternally renewable. They are within the general population because 90 percent of them are the general population.
#5. The general consensus about insurgencies by professional military planners is that a ratio of ten to one is required to defeat them. Call it a post-Vietnam guess if the truth be told. We lost that war, and with a whole lot more troops than we're losing this one with. But using that figure because we don't really have anything more solid, the estimated one hundred thousand insurgents in Iraq, would require one million US troops to defeat. Can we all agree that it's yet another a fact that that commitment is never going to happen?
#6. If we do not leave now, we will leave later. That is yet another fact.
Now, this calls for some simple logic that is inescapable: If we can't win (and we clearly can't), then we have only two choices:
Choice A: cut and run now.
Choice B: Cut and Run later.
The consequences?
A little more logic:
A. Consequences for "cut and run" right now: Unknown, but possible that there will be a "blood bath" in Iraq.
B. Consequences for "cut and run later": Unknown, but possible that there will be a blood bath in Iraq. But one thing is not in doubt: We will continue to watch our troops die in a lost cause if we stay.
We can see that options 'A' and 'B' are fundamentally identical except for the certain loss of many more US troops.
Now where I come from, this equals no good options, but one bad option, and one worse option.
A little more logic: Bad is better than worse.
So we have to cut and run now, or cut and run later, with even greater losses. There is no escaping the logic, only evading the facts.
What about a "timed withdrawal" and/or a slow draw down of troops? This would in fact be stupid and destructive. It would be stupid because it would require maintaining an increasingly defenseless presence over time. It would simply get more of our people killed for the same outcome. The only way to do this with minimal loss of life, is to prepare for it and then get the hell out as quickly as possible en mass. It's not called retreat for nothing, and only a damned fool retreats by walking.
The problem we really have here, is that the Democrats are in the untenable position of having to tell the truth. None of them have, and very few probably will. That's because the truth is what I just told you it was. The dems understand what happens to those who bear even worse news than those who bear bad news.
That is what this comes down to. Like a burning structure at some point in it's consumption, Iraq is already a total loss. There is no more talk of "reconstruction". What little was accomplished was destroyed, and 80 billion dollars is simply "missing". We currently reside under the illusion that continuing to pour water on this fire is going to save the structure. It's not. It may be slowing the burn rate of what's left. With or without a slowing of the burn rate, it's a total loss now and staying there is only going to result in the senseless deaths of yet more firemen troops-.
Who will accept responsibility for all of this? The dems know that once they take any position other than the status quo, they get the blame for the outcome I just informed you has already occurred. Of course it's absurd, they didn't set the fire. They just stood by and watched as it was set. But that's how this works when you've got career arsonists ordering the fire they set to be put out. The sad truth is, Iraq probably can't be saved and certainly not by us if it can. The Powel line of "If we break it, we buy it" failed to take into consideration that if we break it, we simply don't have the money to buy it, let alone "fix" it. We did indeed break it, and now it has broken us. Who will tell the American people? John Kerry? Hillary? Please.
I will not cry if dems do not return to power. There is simply too much good in letting the people responsible for this national nightmare continue to suffer the political consequences of their own lies and crimes against the peace. Of course the dems could probably change this calculus any time they collectively grew a pair of sufficient testicles. How? They'd have to say this: "Iraq is lost to any further remedy by the United States. Any hope for a secular democracy is dead; the government we installed has rejected our principles, women have already lost their rights in Iraq, and it's become another Islamic Republic. We can throw good money after bad, and continue to allow men to die for a lost cause, or we can cut our losses and save what's left of our own military and economy. The war was lost many months ago by the people who chose to undertake it. We want to cut THEIR loss sooner rather than later. "Cut and Run" may sound "dishonorable", but the alternative is to stay and die for no greater purpose than to shield the people who've failed you from culpability for their grievous misjudgments and outright lies. Staying and dying to protect crooked GOP politicians truly is dishonorable and it needs to end". A pretty clumsy sound byte isn't it. You want a short one? "Cut Bush' loss and save our military". That's right; this belongs to Bush, make him own it.
It would take more than one of them to get this message across; like the Republicans, they would have to unify behind the message. Like the Republicans, they would have to have the guts to choose to take their weakest issue politically, and put it right in the faces of their enemies with boldness. Unlike the Republicans, it's not really their weakest issue; they only think it is. The Republicans are obviously, tragically wrong as usual-, but they are united and bold in their error. That alone has a certain power of persuasion and already got them re-elected once. But the undisciplined, unprincipled dems are clearly not up to the task. They're not angry enough, they're not confident enough, and they're not organized enough, and finally, they're not shrewd enough. Maybe in another two years and a thousand more dead soldiers they will be but I wouldn't count on that either.
Iraq may well fall to the "terrorists". But like so many other distortions of reality being used to maintain our presence in Iraq, the term terrorist is a carefully chosen term used to paint a picture not in accordance with the facts. If the so-called terrorists win, they will presumably set up a government. Governments can be negotiated with, and yes, decapitated if necessary. Hamas just stepped forward yesterday and is ready to recognize Israel. Sin Fein was negotiated with and peace was reached. So too were the North Vietnamese eventually integrated into dialog. "Today's terrorists" historically become tomorrow's governments and signatories to treaties and agreements. Eventually they will either integrate into order, or fail to integrate and are then dealt with as governments among nations.
This brings us to the next truth the Democrats have not only failed to recognize and tell, but one which they are actively opposing for political gain; "The war on terror". Iraq demonstrates what every other failed occupation by the United States has historically demonstrated, and that is that based on the definition the administration has used to describe a native resistance to occupation, war inevitably creates "terrorists". Resisting an occupation is not terrorism no matter what tactics are employed. To claim otherwise is to claim that our own American revolution was won by "terrorists". No, terrorism can not be identified within any nation attempting to expel an occupying force. It is self-evident that were this not true, every war which has been fought, has been fought against "terrorists".
Using 1,000 lb. bombs on neighborhoods and killing over a hundred thousand innocent civilians isn't fighting terrorism. It's bringing a war onto innocent civilians. All it's ever going to accomplish is to create more people outraged enough at the deaths of their loved ones, to decide to join the resistence. DUH. Real terrorism used to be regarded as violent actions in the service of a political singularity, fought with intelligence and police action. That was the correct analysis and policy. Iraq is no "terrorist" singularity. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. Combating terrorism, real terrorism, is not a perfect enforcement, nor will it ever be perfect, and this illuminates the next lie shoveled down the throats of the American people on the platter of 9-11: That a "war on terror" can be "won". "The war on terror" will be won when the so-called "war on drugs" is won, which is never. It can't be won because there's no identifiable target worthy of a 500 lb. bomb. Only a carefully targeted arrest or assassination of individual targets can combat terrorists. The American people need to understand their real choice; to either accept a degree of risk in their lives and minimize it intelligently and remain a free people, or to reside in the requisite police state and endless war fabricated out of whole cloth by men bent on global fascism in exchange for an illusion of 'security".
John Kerry has once again stuck his ugly head up and is attempting to play this situation for political gain. Watching the grass roots rise for Russ Feingold, this pathetic man has been all over the map on the issue, and now, ever the opportunist, he's shrewdly attached himself to Feingold's coat tails. "Shrewd" is not good when we're talking about a demonstrated gate keeper, and that is exactly what Kerry is. He has in fact given the Republicans box after box of ammunition, and I for one do not believe it's an accident now, nor has it ever been. Please remember Kerry's real oath, for it's to the same secret society of globalist career criminals as George W. Bush' are (I speak of course of the Skull and Bones). Mr. Kerry; this may indeed be "a secret", but it's no secret that you're the reason Bush sits in the White House today, and it's no secret that you seem to screw the American people every time they hand you the ball. To those may inquire as to my "tin foil hat" now. Rest assured, it's not for communicating with aliens; it's to shield you from powerful intellectual death rays emanating from my cranium. In my book, anyone wanting to be the President of the United States who says "It's a secret" regarding an oath they've sworn, is precluded from any further consideration as a representative. Play your games Mr. Kerry (if you haven't left the room), but do not ever think you're fooling all the people all the time.
I said in a previous editorial that Kerry needs to "shut up and own the disgrace of losing to the STUPIDIST, most verbally impaired, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, criminal imbecile ever appointed to the Presidency", and I stand by that assessment. http://www.opednews.com/articles/op...ke_this_eas.htm
Who does John Kerry think he's fooling? Is he fooling you? He's not fooling me.
The truth be told, this is no time for politics. The banality to which this debate has been subjected to by it's requirement for maintained silence regarding "politically incorrect" observations of facts on the ground and probabilities, is damning the country. It is also insuring that even if the Democrats do squeak out a majority in congress in November, their failure at truth telling now, is already laying the groundwork for their subsequent political destruction in 2008.
