November 30, 2006 - Issue 208 |
||
Back | ||
Is the Iraq War Winnable? By Jamala Rogers BC Editorial Board |
||
Printer Friendly Plain Text Format
|
||
To win any thing means that there’s some identifiable and achievable
goal. For the war in 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 After a bloody month in October, over 20,000 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 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 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 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 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. |
||
Back | ||