Since the beginning of the year, 195 brave soldiers have lost their lives and another 1,476 have been wounded in Iraq. But even more are dying back in "the world". Read about it in my lastest Nolan Chart article http://www.nolanchart.com/article4035.html.
Dan Druck
Druck for Congress
14th Illinois Congressional District
(847) 426-1974
180 S. Western Ave. #201
Carpentersville, IL 60110
____________________________________________________________
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 168 reads
****
Our presence in Iraq, while unwise and perhaps unconstitutional (I don't know about illegal--is he referring to UN laws?), is not an occupation. If their elected government asked us to leave and we refused, then it would become an occupation.
I know we all want our involvement in this war to end, but I find it disingenuous to suggest that if it did everyone involved would be better off. That's just wishful thinking. Let's be honest about the probable consequences of withdrawal for the Iraqui population. Let's admit that many more Iraquis would die in the ensuing chaos than American soldiers are dying today. And let's admit that we value one American life more than the lives of twenty innocent Iraqui civilians.
Let's understand that this means that when we create chaos by unseating a head of state and dismantling his army and police, we don't feel obliged to make amends, or even at least to limit the damage.
This is very serious. To demand a withdrawal without looking these realities square in the face seems to me like the height of falsity and bad conscience. There is just no right way to feel good about this.
>>"...perhaps unconstitutional (I don't know about illegal--is he referring to UN laws?) "
Unconstitutional is illegal, unless one does not recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
>>"Our presence in Iraq, while unwise and perhaps unconstitutional ... is not an occupation. If their elected government asked us to leave and we refused, then it would become an occupation."
That is to view their new government as legitimate. Was it not formed under direct American influence and rule? How many Iraqis view it as a puppet government? Whether tomorrow or in ten years, our departure will spark a civil war, or an overthrow of the government, at the very least. History has a habit of repeating itself. Have we forgotten Iran?
Instead of invading with military, we invaded with operatives who fostered the overthrow of the standing government to make way for Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlaviof. His government stood for years, in part, because of his secret police, the Savak, who were notorious abusers of human rights. The Shah declared martial law in September 1977. A bloody confrontation between police and Muslims killed several hundred people. Muslims called for the Shah's abdication. The Shah tried to pacify them by granting amnesty to several opposition leaders, including Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who had been living in exile in France. In 1979, the Shah's government was overthrown by the people and Khomeini took power.
In November of that year, America suffered the blowback of those actions when our embassy there was invaded by thousands and 54 Americans were taken hostage for 444 days. Our presence in Iraq is viewed by Muslims as a more direct and not so subtle (to say the least) repeat of our government's interference in Iran. I suspect their eventual overthow of the current puppet government will also be "not so subtle.
>>And let's admit that we value one American life more than the lives of twenty innocent Iraqui civilians.
While my article focused on our soldiers' lives and limbs, I have written in the past about the shocking toll on the Iraqi citizens. Estimates are all over the place but they are certainly in the hundreds of thousands. I value all lives. Every life lost in Iraq is a tragedy. In a past article, I included a picture of an Iraqi father holding the corpse of his dead 11 year old daughter. I have an 11 year old daughter. That picture really hit home for me.
>>Let's understand that this means that when we create chaos by unseating a head of state and dismantling his army and police, we don't feel obliged to make amends, or even at least to limit the damage.
I think we've gone beyond the point to where our presence there does more harm to Iraq's security than it does good.
>>This is very serious. To demand a withdrawal without looking these realities square in the face seems to me like the height of falsity and bad conscience. There is just no right way to feel good about this.
Serious, indeed. That is why the issue demands that we look beyond the 10 second sound byte and see things as they really are. That isn't always easy as truth has become a scarce commodity these days.
Dan Druck
Druck for Congress
www.TimeForDan.com
Mr. Druck, let me respond to some of your points:
>>That is to view their new government as legitimate. Was it not formed under direct American influence and rule? How many Iraqis view it as a puppet government? Whether tomorrow or in ten years, our departure will spark a civil war, or an overthrow of the government, at the very least.
Iraq has a democratically elected government. We did not interfere in their electoral process once it was set up, as far as I know. They may not all be happy with it at the moment, but if enough Iraquis view it as a puppet government they can replace it, come the next election, so this government will have to prove itself accountable to the people of Iraq if it wishes to remain in power legitimately. (Unlike Saddam Hussein and the Baathists.)
Why, if the majority of Iraquis were so positive about the elections, are they so dissatisfied now? Because they live in constant fear of getting killed, they have no decent infrastructure; in general life is worse for many of them now than it was before. They are legitimately angry at their government for having failed to live up to their promise of security and prosperity, which I think the majority of Iraquis truly believed during and immediately after the election. I understand there has been a lot of corruption and theft of funds meant for rebuilding infrastructure, and the government will indeed have to be held accountable for that. They are also right to expect that their government should provide them with greater security, something it has failed to do, and which we are doing instead. I wonder how many Iraquis want US troops to pull out immediately.
Let's be clear about who is most directly responsible for the current misery in Iraq. It is neither the US nor the Iraqui government, but the terrorists, both foreign and Iraqui, that are targeting innocent civilians.
>>History has a habit of repeating itself. Have we forgotten Iran?
This parallel you draw is tenuous with regard to the legitimacy of the Iraqui government. The Iraquis elected theirs, whereas the Shah was installed. In strategic terms, you may be right. For us and our national security, maybe Saddam Hussein will have turned out to be the lesser of two evils. But for the great majority of Iraquis, who are not Sunni, he was an evil tyrant, at least as bad or worse than the Shah of Iran ever was. Ask the Kurds what they think of the Saddam and his government.
>>I value all lives. Every life lost in Iraq is a tragedy.
There will be many more if we withdraw our troops immediately. I hope you can live with that.
>>I think we've gone beyond the point to where our presence there does more harm to Iraq's security than it does good.
You are right in the sense that our presence has allowed the Iraqui government to neglect it's duty to protect it's own people. But make no mistake. The attacks against innocent civilians will continue even after we are gone, and they will most likely get worse. The terrorists are not attacking civilians in protest against the US presence in Iraq, as I think many people here mistakenly imagine-- they are trying to gain power for their sectarian factions, and will not stop until they succeed or are defeated. Will this force the Iraqui government to get its act together and apprehend and prosecute the offenders, or will there be more and more murder of defenseless people, ending with the murderers in power? One thing is clear. If we pull out immediately, the violence will get worse at least in the short run, and most likely (given the current state of Iraqui security forces) for a very long time.
Claire Morrissey
>>Iraq has a democratically elected government. We did not interfere in their electoral process once it was set up, as far as I know.
In the British-based "Guardian", there was an article entitled “The Gates of Hell are open in Iraq” written by Jawad al-Halisi, secretary general of the Iraqi National Foundation Congress. He wrote: “The US-British occupation of Iraq is poisoning all political processes in my country and across the Middle East. The elections held under the control of the occupying forces in January were neither free nor fair. Instead of being a step towards solving Iraq’s problems, they have been used to prolong foreign rule over the Iraqi people. Only when the occupiers withdraw from the country can Iraq take the first secure steps towards peace and stability.”
These sentiments are certainly broadly felt inside Iraq itself and point to deepening opposition to the US occupation and its Iraqi collaborators.
>>They may not all be happy with it at the moment, but if enough Iraquis view it as a puppet government they can replace it, come the next election
Well, those who have supported (or even simply observed) the Ron Paul campaign the past year and a half would attest to the fact that election outcomes can be manipulated by media propaganda, violation of election laws (as evidenced by many GOP state organizations), and perhaps even vote fraud - and that is in the United States!!! Do we think it will be any better in Iraq??? While I don't have a crystal ball, I believe the eventual overthrow of the current Iraqi government will not be bloodless.
>>Why, if the majority of Iraquis were so positive about the elections, are they so dissatisfied now? Because they live in constant fear of getting killed, they have no decent infrastructure; in general life is worse for many of them now than it was before.
So much for the success of American nation-building. We must agree to disagree on one issue. You believe our military presence there is creating / maintaining peace. I believe it is exacerbating the tension there. How would you feel if we were in their shoes... with a foreign military occupying our country, shaking you down at checkpoints, creating "collateral damage"? Factor in that this is perhaps the second most important holy land for Muslims and one can no longer ignore that our occupation is fueling tension and violence there.
As it relates to establishing security in the post-invasion phase, we've been there long enough for the Iraqi security forces to get their act together. Protraction of our presence and promises for an "extended stay" only reduces / eliminates the motivation for the Iraqis to step up and take control.
>>Let's be clear about who is most directly responsible for the current misery in Iraq. It is neither the US nor the Iraqui government, but the terrorists, both foreign and Iraqui, that are targeting innocent civilians.
In a general sense, I'm not quite sure if "terrorist" is the most accurate label, given that so many factors akin to a civil war exist. Even though Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, he was THEIR evil dictator. And it was up to the Iraqis to depose him. It was up to them to decide if the conditions under Saddam's rule were bad enough to outweigh the blood to be spilled in a coup attempt. We took that right to decide away from them and forced them into either accepting a government foisted upon them by foreign interlopers or spilling their blood in a civil war. Nobody can definitively predict which path they will take, but, using history as a guide, I believe a civil war there is inevitable.
>>This parallel you draw is tenuous with regard to the legitimacy of the Iraqui government.
Then you expect that which defies past outcomes of the coups created by our government (bloodless or otherwise) in other countries.
>>There will be many more [lives lost] if we withdraw our troops immediately. I hope you can live with that.
Just as Bush's "economic stimulus plan" is delaying and therefore exacerbating a recession, I believe the longer we stay there, the more people (Iraqi and American) will die for all the reasons I've thus far stated. If I'm correct, I hope you can live with that, as well. Regardless of our disagreement on which is the best strategy, we both want to limit the loss of life. Fair enough?
>>But make no mistake. The attacks against innocent civilians will continue even after we are gone, and they will most likely get worse.
It sounds as if you advocate a John McCain foreign policy regarding Iraq. He would keep us there for "perhaps 100 years", thus avoiding the scenario you fear. If not, then I believe you've stated my case: bloodshed will ensue after our departure. Our disagreement lies in the question of whether or not our presence there is only prolonging, and perhaps inflating, that bloodshed. Certainly every life lost before the opportunity exists for stability to be achieved is a life lost needlessly.
Dan Druck
Druck for Congress
www.TimeForDan.com
How many more ways can it be said? I hope it starts finally sinking in.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs