An election in Iraq?
October 30, 2009, 10:42 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
“Should US Troops in Iraq be held Hostage to the next Election?”
Juan Cole has followed U.S. efforts in Iraq knowledgably and closely. Here is what he has to say about the current election impasse (October 30).
http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/should-us-troops-in-iraq-be-held.html
According to this guy, democracy is not for poor people, and elections in Iraq are held strictly for the delectation of neoconservatives. I predict that Obama will eventually abandon Iraq and Afghanistan; this will delight his base, but if not done with a lot of finesse and spin, alienate most independents and doom the Democrat Party for another long stay in the electoral boondocks. Obama is a weak man, and in addition, psychologically a pacifist. He is, I believe, planning for the abandonment, and being an extremely adept thinker and marvelous speaker, is confident he can pull it off. His Hugo Chavez-Fidel Castro-like attempt to isolate and eventually destroy Fox News is, I further believe, part of that planning. But we shall see.
Hey Bob, instead of a whole para… say it like Rush..’I hope he fails’
Ed:
Hope he fails at what?
Apart from Cole’s analysis, what do you think of his argument? U.S. soldiers are stuck in Iraq until there’s an election? Or they follow the SOFA whether there is an election or no. The civil war the Iraqis haven’t had yet is waiting in the wings; does it break out because we don’t leave or when we leave?
As our troops begin leaving in significant numbers, the violence will escalate, reaching ever greater levels as our numbers dwindle. The Iraqi populace will despair, and the tragic denouement will resemble our ignominious final days in Vietnam, with multitudes of citizens desperately trying to catch a ride with our departing troops. This of course is why President Bush didn’t want any pullout timetables. But thanks to a cowardly and despicable administration, it will probably be history repeated. I hope not, but I have not much hope.
This is the way I see it going down, and I hope and pray I’m wrong.
The Islamo-fascists are not going away, and now they smell blood as they contemplate our weak President. It’s so sad…
Bob, I have question for you and I am being serious.
If I were to suggest that you arm yourself and pitch in personally in Iraq and you declined I could suggest that you were being cowardly (incorrectly, I’m sure) because I could say that you were refusing to place yourself in harms way. But how does an administration become “cowardly” or “brave” in this regard? Are you suggesting that Obama and his administration are physically fearful people and that therefore they won’t send other people to face this danger? Or what?
Cowards need some risk (real or not) to be cowardly about. So what’s the risk here that makes the Administration “cowardly” in you opinion (as opposed to them just disagreeing with you about what is to be done)?
Unagidon:
I’m afraid I would be hindrance to our troops; I am seventy-three, with a bad back. I served in the U.S Air Force for eight years, and that’s one of the reasons I feel such a bond with our, troops.
Obama, his ballerina and Mao-admiring advisers are afraid of several things:
1) A vigorous and all-out war against the Islamo-fascist hordes would turn his base against him
2) He would lose support from all of the European socialist elites, and become known, perhaps, as the Black Yale Cowboy.
3) There would be a war within his psyche; he may actually believes, in the depths of his soul, that “violence never solves anything”. In fact, I believe that his quasi-Marxist false consciousness is tending to paralyze his war-making ability. Of course this is purely my own take on him; I could be completely wrong.
4) Finally, he knows that the war on terror (which he has renamed “Overseas Contingencies” or some such nonsense) will stop him from transforming the U.S. into a socialist state, thus severely damaging his self-image (see psyche above).
All of the above is his fear of looking at the world with unblinking eyes, and re-evaluating everything he now believes. That is the greatest fear any of us can ever face. But I could be wrong, of course. But then, so could you…
Bob Schwartz:
Sorry to hear about your back. You’re never too old, however, to learn something new. I’m sure you’d agree.
I won’t post further on this thread so don’t feel obligated to respond. For your own sake, listen to right-wing radio and TV all you want, but please don’t think that any label used by these talk show hosts that ends in “ism” is any reflection of reality. Labeling a corporate servant like Obama as a “socialist” renders such an argument fit only for the echo chamber of the Right.
While I believe that all education is, in effect, self-education and I certainly don’t hold academic degrees to be the only measure of a person’s intellect, it’s worthy to point out that among the following popular commentators and personalities of the Right at the forefront of the “ism” hurling:
Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin
…only Sarah Palin has a 4 year degree (took her 6 years at 4 different schools)
So maybe the next time you hear “Marxist” or whatever, you might want to take it with a grain of salt to say the least.
Brian: Notwithstanding that I’m not to feel obligated to respond to your post, I will anyway. I’m sure you’re aware that wisdom is not necessarily congruent with one’s level of education; Marx was, by all accounts, highly educated, as was Lenin. But they had no wisdom.
In addition, you do have a point about using “Marxist” and “socialist”; but you will note that I used the qualifier “quasi” for “Marxist”. As for socialism, the variety of forms it is manifested renders its use problematical.