Kicking Ass: The Democratic Party's Blog

Too High

Posted by on May 30, 2006 at 07:21 PM

Sunday The New York Times offered an editorial entitled "The Price of Iraq". It was something I missed at the time, but after reading through it today, I thought I'd share it, in case you missed it as well.

Here is an excerpt:


Iraq now does have a constitutional government, elected by the Iraqis themselves. But that will make no difference at all unless that government can provide all its citizens with basic order and security.

Right now armed gangs of thugs, many of them wearing government uniforms, are spreading terror throughout the country. Some were trained by American forces to work for the Interior Ministry, but actually do the bidding of Shiite political and religious leaders. They harass, kidnap and murder people who follow different religious practices or support competing politicians, often with the help of weapons and equipment provided by an American government that had very different objectives in mind. The Times reported last week that Sunni forces working for the Ministry of Defense who were supposed to be guarding Iraq's oil pipeline were instead freelancing as death squads, assassinating people who cooperated with the same government that paid the gunmen's salaries.

Of all of George Bush's many arguments for the invasion, the only one that has survived exposure to reality is that Iraqis deserve something better than a brutal dictatorship. But right now the country appears on the way to a civil war among the armed groups competing to impose order on their own terms. To avoid repeating a very bad history, the nation's security forces must be brought under control by people who have both the will and the capacity to truly unite the nation.

The fact that the current government avoided naming any officials to the posts that control the military and internal security forces when it announced its first cabinet was a clear sign of how difficult that task would be. And coming up with acceptable nominees is just the first and easiest step. The current military and civilian police forces must be purged of their brutal and lawless elements, and the numerous private militias must be made to stand down and disarm.

American forces can never be a substitute for Iraqi soldiers and police officers who take seriously their duty to protect all the people, regardless of religion or ethnicity. Mr. Bush's premise that American troops should simply stay on the ground until Iraq gets things right and defeats all insurgent forces and terrorist groups, however long it takes, is flat wrong. The United States presence is dangerous — to the soldiers themselves, to American standing in the world, and most tellingly to large numbers of innocent Iraqis.

Along the same lines, The Belgravia Dispatch looks at the downward spiral that is Iraq in numbers of deaths.

Yesterday I spent Memorial Day at a friend's house. One of the families attending the get together had come after visiting Arlington National Cemetary. They took their children to visit the grave of their brother, an uncle the children never knew, wanting them to understand that Memorial Day was more than just a day off school.

They talked about the different graves they had passed en route to the one they sought, and how many there were. They wondered aloud when they would run out of space in the cementary.

Another guest at the party was a journalist. He said he is working on a piece about contractors in Iraq. He said the number of American contractors killed was in the thousands as well and yet those deaths go largely unreported.

Combine that number with the number of men and women killed in the line of duty, the Iraqi civilians, and the number doubles over and over again. It's sickening and shows no sign of stopping.

Day by day, our soldiers are in jeopardy. The Iraqi people have a fragile government at best, a nightmare of a country at worst.

Meanwhile, the President has offered no plan, no exit strategy, no leadership. He's offered nothing but cowboy rhetoric he now appears to regret.

Our troops and the American people are owed more than regrets. We are owed more than empty words from a President and an Administration that ignored warnings, dismissed facts and sought to discredit anyone who questioned their reasons for entering Iraq.

Comments (9) «

Bring the troops home!

Honor the Fallen:
Listed by day/Month

http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
Casualty counts:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

1
dk2 on May 30, 2006 at 08:03 PM

Right now armed gangs of thugs, many of them wearing government uniforms, are spreading terror throughout the country.

an some where Americans...and the Chain of Command Covered it Up.

Watch Murtha!

It is not anti American to post about this Mai Haditha. It is what happens when the President of the United States fails to command. And that is exactly what happened here.

2
PeppermintLizzy on May 30, 2006 at 08:47 PM

He's the Commander-in-Chief. He's stated that we must wait until the next President solves his problem.

President Bush has no idea what he's involved in here and clearly intends not to do anything about it but wait. We must get use to the images of pain and suffering in Iraq and at the gravesights back here at home.

He's fallen and he can't get up.

3
SandyH on May 30, 2006 at 08:59 PM

The Commander-in-Chief has stated that we must wait until the next President solves his mistake in Iraq. Time will not make this situation any better.

We must become accustomed to the images of pain and suffer in Iraq and at the gravesites back here at home.

President Bush has fallen and he can't get up. And he can't admit it.

4
SandyH on May 30, 2006 at 09:05 PM

Sorry about the second post. It didn't show up on my computer. I like the second version best.

5
SandyH on May 30, 2006 at 09:06 PM

(msnbc) Marines’ families discuss Haditha fallout

"Nicholas Grey, a second lieutenant in the Marine Reserves based at Camp Pendleton, said the case will result in a loss of credibility for the Marines and increase Iraqi anger.

“It will make it a lot harder for the Marines who want to go through the streets,” he said."

if our marines are to be charged, then george w bush, dick cheney, and donald rumsfield should also be charged as accessories to this war crime for causing this stress to develop. the buck stops at the whitehouse. george not only broke the colin powel pottery rule, he obliterated it. and all because americans of all parties and nationalities got behind bullhorn bush on the 911 rubble vowing to get those responsible "dead or alive." after all this, iraq was a war on terrorism? where's osama?

6
america1st on May 30, 2006 at 09:11 PM

A really good comment from Think Progress:

It remains to be seen how thoroughly and effectively the Marines will investigate itself.

The responsibility for this massacre does not lie with a few grunts, lieutenants, and captains.

This is an indictment of those who put those troops in this position in the first place, which would place the blame squarely upon Rumsfeld and Bush.

Those two, for starters, are the ones who should be tried in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United States should remember that Justice Robert Jackson, the UnitedStates prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, said that no country and no individual should be exempt from being held accountable for atrocities that are commited during war time, and that should mean that, at least theoretically, the United States should not be thought of as being above the law.

7
PeppermintLizzy on May 30, 2006 at 09:39 PM

Osama Bin Laden is trying to bankrupt us! Why does King George side with the enemy?

8
pee-wee on May 30, 2006 at 09:58 PM

Posted by america1st on May 30, 2006 at 09:11 PM

want to add, i'm convinced there's an arrogant insanity in the white(nut)house when this president is ready to start another war, with iran, even after the iranian leader extended an olive branch (yes his letter was critical, but it was an opening to dialogue).

so let me see if i get it.

1) george bush says "mission accomplished" in iraq.

2) george bush thumps iran for a fight.

3) iraq meets with iran one-on-one diplomatically.

??????...?

9
america1st on May 30, 2006 at 10:39 PM


« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.