To win any thing means that there’s some identifiable and achievable goal. For the war in Iraq, the US has neither.

The Bush administration’s moving goals for the war have hit a brick wall. First the goal was to get weapons of mass destruction. When no such was found, then it was to stop the terrorists. When terrorism increased it, then it was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people-- whatever that means. Most of the Iraqis have expressed disdain not just a for the occupation, but for the US-style of democracy.

With the federal elections bringing a regime change, US citizens expect a new strategy for the Bush-made war, including an exit plan.  

The war machine has spent $340 billions of our tax dollars in Iraq. Even with that kind of budget, the troops still don’t have the equipment or support services they need. There’s still talk about the need for more ground troops to finish the (undefined) job.

After a bloody month in October, over 20,000 US troops have been wounded since 2003. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, injured and displaced. The US casualty numbers are hurtling towards the 3000 mark. Over a quarter of the dead are men and women of color; the bulk of these are black and brown souljahs. They must also fight a daily battle at home for their human rights under a Bush democracy.

The situation in Iraqi is now more complicated than ever. 

Bush reminds me of a wind-up toy soldier that has hit an impediment. The arms and legs are still moving; the mouth is stuck on “we must stay the course” or "get the job done" but there’s no forward motion. The toy will continue its efforts to go forward until it totally unwinds or until you pick it up and turn it into another direction.

The other direction for the Iraqi war is still a big debate and there are several factors to be considered. The point is that this war, which looks like it started in 2003, has a long and twisted history. It is like a dungeon with rooms we don’t even know about. There are rooms with fake doors and walls with trick mirrors.

Let’s not forget the US’s chummy relationship with Saddam Hussein before they broke up. When Hussein refused to kiss and make up, that’s when all war really broke out.

In the early 1980’s, then President Ronald Reagan sent a special envoy to re-establish diplomatic relations with Hussein. Hussein was the same fascist dictator who harbored known terrorists, who abused the human rights of his own citizens and who used chemical weapons on resistant Iranians and disloyal Iraqis. Reagan was interesting in pursuing unconditional access to oil, gaining strategic position in the Middle East and protecting allies in the region.

The US envoy was none other than Donald “Dummy Rummy” Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has now been forced to resign in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense. He will maintain his influence in the shadows and behind the scenes, kinda like Dick Cheney does. 

The elephant in the war is the “other war”—the civil war between the Shi’ites and Sunnis. Bush believes that if he says something long enough, he is willing it into action (as in “Mission Accomplished”). Conversely, if he doesn’t say it, then it ain’t so. Bush and his Daddy’s friends refuse to call it a “civil war”. They use terms like “civil unrest”, “ethnic conflict”, “religious strife”, etc.

Perhaps the reason that the US can’t get the Iraqi forces together is that these folks remember US operatives play both ends against the middle. For years, it was a necessary ploy to have the Kurds, Sunnis and Shi’ites fighting one another so the US could carry out its mission. Now, because Bush says so, these groups are supposed to come together in a big group hug with the snap of his fingers.

The ideal strategy is to withdraw US troops in stages over the next year. A UN- sponsored negotiating team would help the factions pull together some semblance of stability. In a less hostile environment, a timetable for a governance plan would be developed ensuring all of their rights to self-determination. The role of the US would be to figure out the amount of a check for the “collateral damage” it has created.

The Congress is all but admitting it doesn’t know what to do and has commissioned the Iraqi Study Group to figure it out for them. Congress says it wants “fresh eyes” to assess the situation. Even Henry Kissinger has been brought from under his rock. With few exceptions, the committee is composed of old, white men who are war-mongers from the past. Vernon Jordon and Sandra Day O’Connor were thrown in to keep black folks and women from hollering about the lack of inclusion.  No freshness here.

I just heard a news commentator responding to a suggestion that Saddam Hussein be brought back into power.

Remember, I said this war is getting more complicated. It’s also getting more interesting.

BC Editorial Board member Jamala Rogers is the leader of the Organization for Black Struggle in St. Louis and the Black Radical Congress National Organizer. Click here to contact Ms. Rogers.

is published every Thursday.