Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
I don't know. But bringing home a fraction of the troops as the iraqis stand up for themselves is not changing course, but exactly what has been said all along.
|
Sure it's what's been said all along. And my point is that it contradicts 99% of the rhetoric from the WH on the strategic importance of the Iraq war. Or another way to put it: the "stand up/stand down" rhetoric in all of Bush's speeches contradicts all the other rhetoric in Bush's speeches.
Here's why: we are in Iraq not just to provide security for the Iraqi people, but to "fight the war on terror." This is because "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror." And winning this war is crucial/vital/imperative for the American way of life, and the future stability of the world.
So here's a question: can the Iraqi security forces fight and win American's war on terror? Are we going to rely on them to protect the security and freedom of the American people, of the "future of democracy", of the world? And the answer can only be, clearly, No. Clearly, Americans have to fight and win America's war on terror. We can't rely on Iraq to fight our war on terror.
So it makes no sense that, as Iraqis "stand up", American soldiers will "stand down". All that the Iraqis are capable of standing up for (and even then they barely can do it), is to provide a little security here and there where it doesn't conflict with their own ethnic interests. So who's left then to fight our war on terror, to protect the future of freedom on our planet, there at the "central front of the war on terror"?
So we're left with a question: was Iraq really the central front in the war on terror when we invaded, or wasn't it? Was Iraq really "connected" to 911, or wasn't it? Because if it isn't and wasn't, then that's completely consistent with bringing the bulk of the troops home by the next election, and letting the Iraqis take over.
So no, I don't think there's any inconsistency in being happy that the bulk of the troops will be home by the next election, while at the same time pointing out that this fact contradicts the hyper-inflated rhetoric from the WH about why we needed to invade that country.
If you want to know whether the WH believes what they're saying, actions speak louder than words.