Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
OpEdNews Op Eds

2007: Another Year of War

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Bob Burnett     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 93
Become a Fan
  (22 fans)
During 2007, the major news item continued to be the war in Iraq. On January 4th, the 110th Congress convened; the first time during the Bush Administration Democrats had controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Many of us expected this changing of the guard would produce a shift in Iraq policy, a real plan for withdrawal of US troops. Sadly, this didn't happen; the war not only continued, but President Bush upped the number of troops with his "surge" initiative. At yearend, many Americans wondered whether it was possible to change anything while Bush was still in office. A recent Pew Research Poll found that nearly half of the public (48 percent) believe the military effort in Iraq is now "going well or fairly well." However, a majority of Americans (54 percent) continue to believe our troops should come home as soon as possible a plurality that has remained remarkably constant throughout the year. As the war has dragged on, the US has become deeply polarized 41 percent of the public wants our troops to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to achieve "victory." Even though his approval ratings have hovered in the thirties throughout the year, Bush has rebuffed all Congressional attempts to change course in Iraq. (As a result, the approval ratings for Congress are now lower than those of the President.) If you are a supporter of George W. Bush, then it's likely you believe he's doing the right thing by staying the course in Iraq. But if you're not a Bush fan, then you became very frustrated this year: you thought the Democrats in Congress didn't stand up to the President. Finally, at the end of the year, Democrats in the House of Representatives responded to Bush's intransigence by postponing consideration of additional Iraq funding. There was increasing indication that Dems were ready to battle the President on this issue. If Democrats do confront the White House, they won't get help from the Republican Presidential candidates. The GOP front-runners Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Thompson all want the US to stay in Iraq until we "win." The Republicans are running as mini-Dubyas even while they carefully avoid mentioning Bush's name. (On the Democratic side, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama favor a withdrawal plan, but with caveats that could result in thousands of American troops remaining in Iraq at the end of 2011.) IN 2008, two factors may force a change in Iraq policy. The first is the continuing deterioration of the US economy. In November, a Newsweek poll reported that, for the first time all year, the public considered "the economy and jobs" to be a more important issue than Iraq. As America's focus shifts to the mortgage crisis, the credit crunch, and the possibility of recession, Bush's scare tactics about Iraq have had less traction. Since 9/11, the Administration's message to the American people has been, "You can have it all, tax cuts and a profligate war on terror, because the economy is robust." Now, as US financial systems tank, more and more American are asking if it's reasonable to continue a war that is costing $2 Billion per week and whose estimated http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html">total cost could exceed $2 Trillion. Mounting concern about the cost of the war has been accompanied by the refrain, "when are Iraqis going to be able to govern themselves?" Democrats have long taken the position that it is unreasonable for the US military to be asked to serve in the role of the Iraqi police force in the middle of a civil war. The Iraqi government has yet to achieve any of the political objectives that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki delineated a year ago. Nonetheless, the White House downplays the lack of political progress. Now, key Republican Senators, such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina argue that if the Iraqi government doesn't show progress by the end of the year, it's time for a change in US strategy. Recently, Washington Post military writer Thomas Ricks noted: "Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than Al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias." Early in 2008 there will be another showdown over Iraq: whether US involvement is worth the price. It's likely that when President Bush says it is, that America has to stumble on, regardless of the cost, he will find he has lost the support of a veto-proof majority in Congress. Then our troops will begin to come home.

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. In a previous life he was one of the executive founders of Cisco Systems.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
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.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Ten Telltale Signs of Republican Disease

Big Liars and The Voters Who Love Them

Obama vs. Romney: The Bottom Line

The GOP Chooses Fascism

2011 Budget Battle: Obama Wins While Democrats Lose

Obama vs. Romney: The Popularity Contest