Friday, June 23, 2006

Today's Cartoon: The U.S. Senate Rejects Democrat's Proposal For Iraq

I think the main problem with Iraq is that there is no consensus among Democrats and Republicans as to what the "mission" actually is.

Even when George W. Bush landed on that aircraft carrier back in 2003 and declared victory in front of a banner which read "mission accomplished", people didn't know for certain which "mission" he was referring to. Was he talking about the discovery of those elusive WMDs, or did he mean the defeat of "Al Qaeda"? Was it the overthrow of Saddam Hussein or was he referring to the introduction of "democracy" to the region? I guess it didn't really matter what the reasons for "celebrating" were at the time; they were every bit of confusing as the reasons for starting the war were to begin with. Mainly because they didn't even match-up.

Fast forward three years and the situation in "Post-war" Iraq is even worse now than it was when the U.S. has just "won". The casualty rate is increasing, morale is low (at least on the home front) and partisan "wordsmiths" continue to squabble over whether "sectarian violence" or "civil war" is the more appropriate term. For ALL that the world knows now about the "faulty intelligence" leading up to the invasion, if the United States was SO "wrong" for going into Iraq in the first place, then how could they possible be SO "right" in staying there?

Using "9/11" and the "War on Terror" as the justification for the war in Iraq is kinda’ like saying that the U.S. was invited to a "Frat party", but got the address wrong and showed up at some old guy's house instead. But rather than leave and walk down the block two houses, to the party; they just insisted that the old man had beer, made him "bartender" and invited the "Frat party" to come over to his house instead. And even when they realized that there was no beer in the house, it was more than made up for by the in-ground swimming pool in the back yard.

I think the only way that the rest of the world would even consider getting involved with Iraq now, is if the United States was NOT calling the shots; because they can't seem to agree among themselves as to why they're even there to begin with. The term "Stay the course", has become like one of those graphics TV stations put up on the screen when something goes wrong, which read "We're experiencing technical difficulties, please stand by", except then they usually do something to make the show come back on the air; however, it's now been over 3 years, and the static has actually gotten steadily worse.

What Democrats and Republicans have to do is agree upon what the mission in Iraq actually is, before they can figure out a way to “accomplish” it. I know this can be tough, I mean the UN did call the invasion "illegal" for a reason.

The only way to learn from your mistakes is to admit that you've made them in the first place. Sometimes the truth hurts, which is why God invented "hangovers". "Hindsight" has always been 20/20, which makes it far more reliable than "foresight"; especially when it is seen through "beer goggles".


Blogger MikeFitz said...

Think how different Iraq could be today if, instead of proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”, the US had planned to then send in a wave of school and hospital builders. How much harder would it be to recruit jihadis then?

11:08 a.m.  
Blogger Kevin said...


It certainly appears that the US has "won" the war, but "lost" the peace in Iraq.

Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people after the invasion seems to have been an after thought for the Bush Administration, because they ACTUALLY believed in their own propaganda that they would be greeted as "liberators".

I honestly believe that it is America's current policy in Iraq that is the greatest threat to the American troops serving there. It fuels the "insurgency" and recruits the jihadis.

Hmm... Maybe the White House should hire Russell Crowe's P.R. firm to take over the operation in Iraq :)

3:33 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home