Political Leaders' Silence on Iraq War Is a Dereliction of Duty

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    Apologies for the length, but I think this one is worth reprinting in full.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook22aug22,0,7321962.column
     
  2. anonymous161 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Location:
    Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
    #2
    If this government was into "listening" or "open dialog" we wouldn't be in this situation as it is.
     
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #3
    Bush cites, as his reason for not setting specific dates, the idea that that will simply tell the insurgents how long they have to fight in order to outlast the American occupiers.

    But while that makes sense on the surface, it doesn't bear close examimation. Bush's current plan is more goal-oriented: get a constitution and permanent government in place, train the Iraqi troops to defend themselves, etc. However, the latter is taking much longer than it should, and while the former may come to pass, there is no telling how long it will last.

    Accordingly, Bush does need to set a deadline, even a secret one, by which he either fishes or cuts bait. At some point, the Iraqi troops will or won't be able to defend their country from the insurgents. It is not the job of the U.S. to hang in there indefinitely while they keep trying.

    Of course, withdrawal may very well cause the country to descend into civil war, and would embarrass the U.S. (read: the neo-cons) before the world, so I think Bush is gonna hang onto this war until and unless he is threatened with something as serious as impeachment.

    And impeachment ain't gonna come because of the Republican Congress, despite the fact that there's plenty of justification for it. The death of American soldiers, based on a bogus war, is reason enough for impeachment, if not actual criminal charges. As far as I'm concerned, Congress is already derelict in their duty for not charging Bush on that basis.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Let's hope that 2006 brings some change.
     
  5. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    Not that I don't agree with the article IJ, but I wonder about the possible alternatives to pursue.

    I have never supported the reasoning behind this war, and even less so. it's execution.

    That said, it has been done and disaster or not, I feel at this point we have no choice but to follow through with this endeavor, at least to the point of stabilization.

    This would require increased spending and troop levels, as well as the acknowledgement that we may not get the Iraq we were hoping for at the end of it all. Personally, I think it is the only responsible course of action - to clean up the mess, even if we (personally) had no hand in making it.

    Now, there are serious doubts about whether Bush will, even with all the troops in the world, make the right choices which lead to stability, which would be pragmatic, not ideological - not his strong suit. Still, with the time-frame in question, his successor may prove better at this task and/or more motivated for closure on the matter.

    What I would ask, however, is that if we as Americans should have to suck-it-up and clean up a mess many of us disagreed with, with our lives and tax dollars - that those responsible for creating this mess and exarcerbating it, should be held accountable - at least politically.

    I would ask that whether you be Republican or Democrat, you should make your discontent known at the voting booth, if nowhere else - and vote those particular ideologues out of office and support those who wish to make a stand in support of their constituencies.

    I would also ask that many of you voice you discontent with the talking-head set who would discredit good ideas and good men/woman through their rhetoric for their own self-serving, partisan ends. I can think of little less pathetic and unpatriotic than these fools. Turn the channel at the very least.

    This is important stuff, and demands an honest appraisal of what is possible, what is probable and what sacrifices we need to make collectively to make things right. We should all demand nothing less, even if it hurts our collective pride.
     
  6. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    So do I. The Bungler in Chief hasn't left us with a lot of appealing options. But I think the overall point of the article was to bemoan the lack of any debate and discussion over what ought to be done to extricate ourselves from this mess. The parallels to the Vietnam era grow daily. For years it was difficult for anyone in Congress to criticize the direction of the war lest they be accused of being Commie sympathizers. It took a huge groundswell of public opinion before it became acceptable to even discuss getting out. After that, it only took another five years or so for it to actually happen. A grim prospect indeed.
     
  7. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #7
    Why would the Bushites withdraw their forces from Iraq, when the whole idea behind the invasion was to put them there permanently.

    You'll need a change of government before the bases shut and your brave boys come home.
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    I understand the point of the article, but I wonder how practical it to raise a point of debate, without having an alternative option on how to proceed
    . It seems like a chicken-or-the-egg situation, ripe for partisan sniping. Poor commentary on the political climate, obviously.

    As for your Vietnam parallel, I was too young to have direct experience, but I understand your point.

    I do wonder, on another level, whether the fact that in Vietnam when we left, we at least left a relatively stable system in it's place - the Communist Vietnamese. Despite the how palatable that may seem or not, we do not even have that in Iraq.

    Chaos changes the calculus. I worry.
     

Share This Page