they never want to leave Iraq, no matter how many lives are lost or how little is gained
Every day, the American political landscape is peppered with talk and debate about Iraq. One side talks about a responsible departure while the other uses inflamatory language to try to make the case for surges and further commitments in the region.
T.B.T.K. is an old commonly used set of letters around capitol hill. It stands for "too big to kill." It is commonly used around government pork projects that lawmakers or whomever have ensured it's continued funding by simply making the program so large that arguments can be made about "economic hardships" and other negative factors happening if the program is 86'ed. Some examples that others have cited would include medicare or the international space station. When a military base is threatened with closure due to modernization or efficiency, too big to kill type arguments are made to save it.
In invading Iraq, we were promised quick results, shiny happy people cheering our name and low costs. In fact, Paul Wolfowitz, now facing ethics dilemmas as head of the World Bank due to his alleged promoting and handsomly upping the salary of his girlfriend, promised more than that.
Wolfowitz promised a "no cost" war. He and his neoconservative "experts claimed that Iraq's own oil revenues would pay for everything with change left over. A brief time later, they were beckoning Congress, hat in hand, for a 78 billion dollar supplemental bill to make up for those non existant oil revenues. When certain members of Congress wanted to share some sacrifice with the richest 1% amongst us, they were painted as traitors by the administration and their well oiled punditry.
Now, a trillion or so dollars later, after the American people demanded a change from "stay the course" and a departure from the civil war we are unjustly refereeing, we are in the midst of a surge. Marketed as "a new direction."
But it's not. It's actually the 3rd "surge" we have attempted, and is failing as miserably, if not more, than the previous two. It is more of "stay the course" with a new advertisement campaign. Another sales pitch, just like everything involving this war has been from the administration.
Why sell it? Because that's what you do with pork barrell programs that you want to last forever. Just keep making them "too big to kill." This is even evidenced by the smart ass recent quips about the surge from the administration that has only exposed their desires further. When the President says that he is delivering the changes that americans wanted, you can see the smirk a mile away. I'm surprised it's not commonly followed with a "na, nana na, na" sometimes.
The latest surge allows the neoconservative chickenhawks to essentially push this war to the next administration. The old stall game, an old pork barrell trick. Keep the program going so long that it becomes part of the fabric, rather than something special that must be seperately considered on it's own merits. Plus, this allows the neoconservatives to point the finger of blame that "they lost the war" as if the Bush administration was just on the "verge of victory" when "they screwed it all up." I expect those charges will be levied against anyone who tries to stop our continued occupation and civil war referee role in Iraq before they are even sworn in.
Congress has answered by insisting that there be conditions on this funding. Conditions that makes people accountable for their actions instead of another wasted blank check. But that is unacceptable to the neoconservative brand of pork. From their perspective, things like the relief Bush promised the people of New Orleans and the gulf region are the "unneccessary" things. To hell with New Orleans, we have a never ending war to fight!
But how exactly how will this war end. And more importantly, Can it even possibly have an ending? President Bush has only stated how it won't end. It won't end like they tried to end it prematurely in 2003 with declarations and speeches on the decks of aircraft carriers with big "mission accomplished" banners flying high.
There will always be terrorists. There will always be people who are willing to go beyond societal norms to make their point as terrorists do. No doubt, there are some in Iraq. Of course there are. But then again, there are terrorists in just about every developed and some undeveloped countries in the world. There are terrorists in the US. There are terrorists in Canada. Should we invade Canada?
The fact is that the terrorist element is and always has been relatively small in Iraq. Under Saddam, they threatened him and his secular ways so he kept them out with his iron fist methods. And today, even with the pourous borders with Syria and Iran (both of which keep al quaeda out much more adamantly than say, egypt and saudi arabia who we ally ourselves with) the terrorist threat amonst the militias account for only a minimal percentage and is really nothing compared to the civil war that overshadows it.
But will we ever be able to catch terrorism "in a bag" in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter? Of course not. So, therefore, we can assume, that there ALWAYS will be terrorists and the potential for violent acts. The administration claims that placing any kind of "timeline" to end their TBTK program only "emboldens the enemy."
Nonsense!
Why? Think about it.
Let's say we do put a timetable on a withdrawal. According to the chickenhawks, the "enemy" will only sit back and relax until we leave.
So what?
If the Iraqi infrastructure is given a set amount of time with relative calmness that will allow it to gain the footholds it can't do now, is that so bad? Wouldn't they be more equipped and better prepared to fight those terrorists after they have had a chance to set some things up and provide some basic, at least, defense structure? Would we not be better prepared to surgically strike those more exposed elements with a revitalized and properly equipped and trained military unlike the untrained and unprepared soldiers we are sending to their deaths or permanent dismemberment or worse today?
If the plan of the terrorist element of the "insurgency" is to "wait till we leave" then why wouldn't they lay low now? Or last year? Or the year before? they certainly aren't perpetuating the civil war part. That's just sunni and shiite native Iraqi's fighting each other. They aren't terrorists, they are fighting a civil war. If this was the Reagan administration, and we weren't neck deep in this quagmire, we'd be calling at least one side "freedom fighters."
Instead, our governement has announce that we are no longer going to waste our time training the "Iraq security force" in the ways of sophisticated warfare. This being that they simply can't be trusted. Many "security force" personel are in actuality members of sunni or shiite malitias and are using their uniforms, training and weapons to kill opposing malitias. We simply can't trust them. And not because they are terrorists necessarily. Tho there are surely a few infiltrations by terrorists, we know that most of the infiltration has come from militias fighting the civil war against each other. There have been reports of Iraqi troops being turned on and killed by people who were supposedly fighting with us.
So the bumper sticker slogan of "when they stand up, we'll stand up" is hogwash. We have no intention of them standing up. And we know the only prayer they would have of standing up on their own is if we cut the cord and allow this young nation to develop on it's own, perhaps seriously considering actually implememnting some plans that the Iraq study group or Joe Biden have offered allowing Iraq to go back to it's old, more natural borders.
But this administration decided that they would "Berlinize" Baghdad by putting up a 12 foot, 3 mile wall. Because, as we all know, people really like being caged in by a foreign occupier. Plus, it's no surprise that this naive administration would surmize that people who are willing to blow themselves up won't want to walk a little or get a ladder.
The time has come to end this madness. The time has come to take responsibility and go forward. The time has come to end the neoconservative pork barrell program that was sold as an imminent threat by those who were thirsty for Iraq's oil and chomping at the bit to make their money in Iraq. It wasn't an imminent, grave or even growing threat. If anything, it was a nuisance and a boxed in one at that according to Colin Powell before the invasion. And it is not "too big to kill." Don't believe the hype.
Today, we hear cries of leaving behind mass carnage and chaos as if that isn't the case today. And based on this administration's track record, i'm willing to take my chances with another direction. If we ever get out of Iraq, then maybe we can actually focus on bringing to justice those who killed over 3000 americans on September 11th, 2001.
Till then, Osama Bin Laden and his cronies will just sit back and laugh as we drain our resources, people and credibility in Iraq.
"