Republicans Accept 1000+ More American Deaths in Iraq

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By Ron Fullwood (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

Results published on the eve of this year's 9-11 anniversary from a New York Times/CBS News poll, echoed last year's, finding that 62 percent said the "war was a mistake," and 59 percent said that it was "not worth the loss of American lives and other costs."

Of course, both Petraeus and Graham would be more than happy to educate those reluctant Americans on the efficacy of sacrificing Americans for the Iraqi regime. They could begin by elaborating on the answer the general gave when he responded that there was no al-Qaeda organization in Iraq before we invaded. The same NYT/CBS poll also showed that “33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats," still believe that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Both Graham and the general, however, were content in raising yet another specter of a threat. In a FOX appearance after the hearing, Graham explained why he supports the anticipated sacrifice of more than 80 Americans in allowing the continuance of Bush's escalated occupation.

"Here's what I asked the general:" Graham told FOX news, "Is it worth it to stay there knowing you're going to spend $9 billion a month for at least another seven or eight months? You're going to lose 70, 80 U.S. troops a month. You're going to be having 100,000 people in place probably a year from now. Is it worth it? And he said yes," Graham answered himself.

"The cost of winning, my friend, is great." Graham said. "The cost of losing..."

Host: ...what winning is…
Graham: Can I tell you what it is?
Host: Please do.
Graham: Winning is a stable, functioning, representative government that can contain Iran, will reject Iranian domination...

Reject Iranian domination? That's the new justification for continuing the sacrifice of our nation's defenders to the enemies of the foreign Iraqi regime (another, in a long line of shifting justifications)? Does Sen. Graham really mean that he expects our soldiers to fight and die at a rate of 80 a month to "reject Iranian domination" of the Maliki regime? The same Iraqi regime which is literally hand-in-hand with the Iranian government? Did Graham really mean that we've removed the wedge against Iranian expansion into Iraq that Rumsfeld once nurtured -- literally hand-in-hand with Saddam -- and allowed Iran to nuzzle-up to the regime we helped install behind the sacrifices of our soldiers -- just to push Iran out again, behind the same sacrifice of troops?

Petraeus weighed in with his own wag of their Iranian pet, saying that, their influence “certainly has contributed to a sophistication of attacks.’’ As to the weapons used by the combatants in Iraq, “there’s no question where they are coming from,’’ Petraeus accused.

Petraeus knows well where, at least, the initial bulk of weapons used by the insurgency and militias came from. He knows that his occupying forces "lost track" of about 190,000 weapons issued to the Iraqis that he and others were in charge of training for the new Iraqi army and police forces. Petraeus, in August, blamed the missing weapons on bookkeeping. But, the general has had direct experience with U.S. weapons he's distributed becoming 'lost' to Iraqi combatants. In Mosul, where was Petraeus in charge in 2003-2004, $41m worth of weapons were 'lost' as the town he left behind was recaptured months afterward. The bulk of those 'lost' weapons, and the others, are surely in the hands of those in Iraq who would actively resist our forces' strident advance into their territory.

Is really an accident that our military has managed to arm both sides of the Iraqi civil war? Bush was bragging just the other day about our forces nuzzling up to Sunnis willing to join in attacks on those combatants who identify themselves with the 9-11 fugitives Bush has let roam free for six years and arming them. Those forces are still pledged to violent resistance against the U.S.-enabled Maliki regime. Those weapons will, undoubtedly, add to those deaths that supporters of Bush's 'stay the course' strategy are indifferent to.

The U.S. forces that Petraeus now command, remain the most dangerous, destructive and pernicious influence in Iraq. It is the result and effect of the chaos and unrest his occupation has fostered in Iraq which our forces are now defending against. The prescription from the general, and from republican supporters/enablers like Lindsay Graham, is to continue forward with an escalation of that dangerous, destructive and pernicious influence.

The direct consequence of that continuance for the U.S. will be the predicted (and predictable) loss of about 1000 more American soldiers before they completely remove the 30,000 troops they added in their surge; in addition to the almost 3800 already killed as a result of continuing the occupation of Iraq.

Bush and his republicans in Congress say their ambitions in Iraq are worth it.

1 | 2

Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.