insomnomaniac

What's in it for us?

You know, I've got a question for those in Congress currently insisting that General Petraeus must be lying (or "cooking the books" or "cherry-picking" statistics): How do you justify those accusations by saying that there's nothing in it for us in Iraq, that we're just playing referee, and that this isn't a battle against AQI or international terrorism in general, but rather a sectarian civil war in which we have no role to play and--often in the very next breath--insist that this is all about OIL? Is there, or isn't there, something in this for us?

(Scratches head in bewilderment)

And how is it possible for you to cotain in your brain these two thoughts at the same time (because I've heard them both, expressed virtually back-to-back):
1) "There's nothing in Iraq for us, our forces are misplaced there, there isn't even a real place called Iraq and the people of Iraq don't see themselves as a country. They aren't stepping up to the plate there to help themselves, they need to put up or shut up, we aren't going to stay there and play referee, etc..."

2) "This is an illegal war of aggression and we are over there killing hundreds of thousands of people! We invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked us on 9/11, we have no right to be there!"

And, the coup de grace just has to be:
"Our forces are stretched thin, we shouldn't be in Iraq because we need to be at-the-ready in case Iran makes a move! Iran is more dangerous anyway!"

Followed by something along the lines of

"Aren't you just trying to scare us into believing we need to stay in Iraq when you say that Iran is poised to move into any power vacuum left by us if we leave? Isn't this just a Bushitlerburton ploy to trick us into 'staying the course'?"

(Scratches head in disbelief)

What's saddest to me is that we have elected representatives who don't "get" the so-called "big picture" as much as they should to have any claims of legitimacy in the "We can keep you safer" department. But that's probably because we're electing the wrong people. We need to elect someone like Paul.

Iraq in context

Diana West (author of The Death of the Grown Up, which I'm currently reading) thinks that the troop surge in Iraq makes little sense because success in Iraq would "do nothing to ward off jihadist state threats -- Iran, for instance, in the wider region." She also believes that our focus on Iraq causes us to lose sight of "the big bad world beyond."

I confess to not really understanding why the primacy of the Iranian threat means we shouldn't push forward in Iraq. I don't know of anyone who advocates a mass U.S. invasion of Iran, and all other options -- tougher sanctions, encouragement of Iranian dissidents, bombing of Iranian nuclear sites -- are compatible with "surging" in Iraq. If the surge is causing us to lose focus when it comes to Iran -- and I'm not persuaded that it is -- why isn't the remedy to talk more about Iran, rather than giving up in Iraq? I admit that our lack of success in Iraq may well have made it more difficult to come to grips with Iran. But since we can't turn back the clock, why not pursue a course that seems to be helping to generate success in Iraq?

Diana wonders, "what's in it for us" in Iraq? One answer is the defeat of al Qaeda's most active operation. Iran is a major adversary in the war on terror, but so is al Qaeda. If al Qaeda in Iraq is routed because Sunni Arabs, with our encouragement and assistance, turn against it, that seems like a big deal. Our current strategy is helping to produce just that result, and in my view that's reason enough not to abandon it.

Finally, Iraq seems to have become a front in Iran's confrontation with the U.S. In fact, Iranian assets are operating in Iraq as part of the effort to drive the U.S. out. Thus, Iran must believe that its chances of dominating Iraq will improve if the U.S. leaves, and/or that a U.S. defeat in Iraq will improve Iran's chance of establishing a regional hegemony. I believe this too.

Yup, me too Paul (maybe I should run for office too). So if we get it, (as brilliant as we are, we're not nearly as close to the issues on a daily basis as they are) why don't they?

Maybe the answer is even MORE terrifying (if that's possible): They DO get it, but it's more politically expedient to pretend they don't. Keeping us safe isn't their goal, keeping themselves in power IS.

But the four-star General is betraying us?

(Pulls hair out in chunks)

Posted by insomnomaniac at September 11, 2007 4:18 PM | TrackBack