I watched the President's speech last night. I'm not sure what to say... he seemed uneasy at times, messed quite a few times, attempted to re-write history again, told us that the war in Iraq was winnable (I thought we won already? Like May of 2003? Mission Accomplished anyone?), that we have enough troops in Iraq, that the Iraqis were going to take over sooner rather than later, told us about the new enemy, and talked about 9/11.
Okay am I missing something here? Most of the news from Iraq since April of 2003 has been bad, from the looting in the very first days to the daily bombings of today. While we have handed over power to the Iraqis, last I checked the Iraqis can't run the country right now. In effect, we are keeping the country afloat and from falling into utter chaos, thus we hold the power. Maybe we can win in Iraq, but we don't seem too close to that goal. Plus what is winning in Iraq? A stable democracy? Is that winning? Besides getting rid of Saddam, what was or is winning? Just a sable democracy? What about the WMDs? Is the fact that they didn't have them winning or a victory? So a stable democracy is what Bush wants... what if they aren't pro-American like Iran? Then what? What if we install a stable democracy that's anti-American? Is that is desired? Bush's speech only raised more questions it answered very little.
And then there is 9/11. For political reasons Bush has to bring up 9/11, it's all he has. Between not having caught ben Laden and the mess in Iraq, Bush's post 9//11 track record is shameful. So Bush has to go back to 9/11, something that moves every American, to justify Iraq. But as we know, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The new line I'm hearing is that the culture and political climate in the Middle East led to 9/11 and therefore reforming Iraq is going to change things. Of course that’s a lie of BS since first we heard about the WMDs and democracy doesn’t guarantee that the terrorism will stop. Just look at the terrorist organizations actually gain in popularity in the Middle East, from Hamas and Hizbullah to various parties in Iran, via democratic means. Even if Bush and the US is successful in reforming Iraq, there is no guarantee that this will happen in the rest of the region. And the idea of taking the fight to the enemy, I need not tell anyone that the terrorists were not in Iraq in early 2003, it has been the war in Iraq that has only created more terrorists and has made Iraq and the entire region more delicate.
The reality is that we're in Iraq for the long haul. We'll be there in 2008 in all likely hood (thus whoever follows W in the White House will have to deal with Iraq). Now, Bush may pull the troops before that, but politically both domestically and internationally, that would be a disaster. The best W and friends can hope for is a stable government. The worst-case scenario would be a civil war in Iraq that would only create more chaos in the Middle East. And somewhere in between, the threat of Iraqis turning against the US military still exists. Hope doesn't lie in the American military at this point, they're actually doing a fantastic job; rather hope lies in the Iraqis. That in itself is a scary position. If one of the three groups in Iraq feels left out, who knows what will happen.
Bush got up there yesterday and tried to be a cheerleader, he tried to tell us that it was going to be all right, that we can win. But he didn't seem very reassuring. He continues to blur the line between truths and lies. And it's becoming more and more clear that success in Iraq will be what ever Bush says it is; even if he never said it from the get go. Is it a hopeless situation? Probably not, but that doesn't change too much. I mean it seems pretty clear that the war was, a total and utter mistake.