Monday, July 28, 2008

Iraq "Victory": Crying Wolf

One of the surest ways you can tell the Republican Party and the US military leadership is lying through its teeth is when it starts talking about progress or success in Iraq. Since 2003, our President has declared that all major combat in Iraq over. Since 2004, we have claimed that Iraq is now sovereign. Since 2004, we have claimed Iraq either won or is progressing no less than a dozen times. When the scions at Fox 'News' wonder why the American people are so overwhelmingly anti-war, even after the latest propaganda effort to paint Iraq as the next city on the hill, the pathological dishonesty in the government's many proclamations about Iraq's success is why.

If you doubt this, just look at the recent stories, released by the AP Press, asserting that Iraq has been an unexpected success because of the "surge" offensive conducted last summer. The decrease in violence in the capital city is then touted as signs of that most precious and unheard of word in the last five years, progress. We are even talking about "handing back" Iraq its full sovereignty and control of its internal police by this fall (just in time for the elections, naturally). Remember, four years ago, Iraq was supposedly handed its sovereignty, so this will be the second time we are officially making Iraq "sovereign."

Here is what the Senator McCains, his 527 hit squad from the offices of Veterans for Truth, or even General Petraeus do not tell you. As of now, the US military and its so-called Iraqi allies continue to control less than half of Baghdad. The US military and its Iraqi allies still do not control Iraq's borders. What constitutes the Iraqi government, or the occupation government set up by the US, continues to hide within the confines of the Green Zone, as it is well known that if any member of parliament tried to hold session outside of the US-sealed Green Zone that MP would soon be dead. This is what we call success.

Why? Because there is a decrease in killings? Well, has anyone considered that there are fewer attacks because the attackers are regrouping? We should know this because since the offensive surge last summer, the US taxpayer has been subsidizing Iraqi insurgents who agree to a ceasefire with the US. In other words, we the American taxpayer are using our funds to pay blood money to forces who have killed our people. This is how we succeed, apparently, which has still yet to produce a situation whereby less than a hundred thousand of our soldiers must be used in perpetuity to bolster and maintain Iraq's occupation government.

For those who want to talk about the success of Iraq, how we are securing final victory, I will make this bet with anyone who so desires. On the threat of making an internet video apology to the American right-wing, I guarantee that by November (when President Bush and his man servant General Petraeus are declaring Iraq a victory for the ages) the Iraqi government will still be meeting inside of the Green Zone, and at least 100,000 American troops will be occupying Iraq (this is in light of the Iraqi government's promise, back in October 2007, to have a hundred thousand American troops sent home before the end of the year). And I guarantee that the Iraqi military and police will not have effective control over all of Baghdad by November, either (even after we claim they do). Of course, if any of you budding Jonah Goldbergs want to take me up, when you lose, you will have to make a video for YouTube apologizing for your stupidity.

No comments: