It took me awhile to digest the all-night Senate debate over the Defense Authorization Bill. The form of the debate was that of a marathon recitation of talking points. Ultimately, "moderate" republican senators chose to block a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment to begin redeploying, so we stay the course in Iraq.
The session did provide for some excellently ridiculous political logic from the war-mongers, however, so it wasn't a total loss. I would like to highlight the Top Ten Lame Excuses for Supporting the Iraqi Occupation.
Top Ten Lame Excuses for Supporting the Iraqi Occupation:
- Failure: Failure in Iraq would lead to further chaos, genocide, and a humanitarian crisis.
- Safe Haven: If we allow a safe haven in Iraq, we will have to return there in the future.
- Generals: The generals say wait, and the Senate confirmed General Petraeus.
- Terrorists: We are fighting them there so they don't attack Wal-Mart.
- Iran: Iran could give Iraqi terrorists nuclear weapons.
- Oil: Oil revenues are used for the benefit of the American people.
- Politics: Politicians should not micromanage a war.
- Israel: Regional instability threatens our ally, Israel.
- Retreat: Withdrawal is too difficult to achieve without precipitous calamity.
- Saudi Arabia: Regional instability threatens our alliance with the Saudis.
Excuses Explained:
Every excuse available to those favoring war over a healthy America is utterly bogus and based entirely on irrational rhetoric. Let us deconstruct each of the arguments above.
1. Failure
Failure is a subjective judgement made based on whether goals have been achieved. What are the goals in Iraq that have not been achieved? The country is embroiled in a civil war that prevents any progress on reconstruction. Our military has been almost entirely ineffective in curbing militia activity. Furthermore, we have seen a steadily increasing diet of news stories about chaos, genocide, and a humanitarian crisis, not to mention the increase in our own soldiers being killed on a daily basis. There has never been and never will be a way of predicting the future. Such proclamations of further deterioration are meaningless absent a real plan to reduce such violence.
2. Safe Haven
By creating a power vacuum in Iraq, the Bush-Bremer administration effectively invited extremists bent on violence against the infidels to that region of the world where they had effectively been excluded for 30 years. It was a welcome invitation and, of course, certain elements seized the opportunity. Again, this is an argument that means nothing given the history of the situation. The haven is operating right now. Unless you have a real plan for effecting a change, it is time to take the helm from the republicans.
3. Generals
I often wonder why confirmations are taken so casually when the republicans have consistently used any agreement over a nomination as a mandate that their lackey be unquestioned in his/her performance. Such is the case with General Petraeus and Secretary Gates. Based solely on the fact that they were confirmed by the Senate, republicans argue that their opinions be writ in stone as policy. This is completely inapppropriate, denying that any check or balance exists in the Congress aside from confirming all the president's men.
4. Terrorists
To argue that islamic extremism will bring down civilization as we know it is simple ignorance. No such threat actually exists. Yes, there are millions of people in the world that abhor the United States for its foreign policy and for its imperialistic doctrine that "american interests abroad" equate to national security interests. However, only a few thousand dangerous extremists exist, and the Bush administration seems uninterested in pursuing them. Hint: Most of them are now in western Pakistan.
5. Iran
If ever a neo-con argument is made, it will involve "regional interests" and either Iran or Israel. We have all heard of the non-compliance of the Iranian government with UN and IAEA rules. Now, we have kidnapped US citizens on the news. Presumably the US citizenry is not so completely stupid as to let the same failed administration convince them to execute another war on another sovereign nation that is no threat to us on the eve of our military's implosion. But is the citizenry prepared to foil an administration that ignores it?
6. Oil
When one of the most oil-rich nations on the planet suffers a fuel shortage, someone has seriously mismanaged. Yet Senator McCain is bold enough to come before the public and proclaim that Iraqi oil is helping Americans. Why isn't it helping Iraqis? We do not need Iraqi oil (and we aren't really getting it anyway); we need a clear policy of sustainable energy.
7. Politics
I find it hard to believe that republicans think so highly of Iraqi militants that they would wish to censor themselves to avoid letting the militants know what they really think. When did your constituency shift to Iraq, Senator? We, the people, tell our Congress what to do. Don't accept anything less.
8. Israel
Our foreign policy must not be tied to the interests of Israel so closely that our own interests are impaired. They are unable to return the favor.
9. Retreat
Somehow, while acknowledging that we have the most capable military on the planet, republicans will insist that is just too difficult to implement the plan outlined in the Levin-Reed amendment. Like many such specious arguments, the reasoning is that the task is just too difficult. Nothing that has been proposed is difficult. The first troops come home after 4 months of preparation.
10. Saudi Arabia
The redeployment that is being proposed would likely move large amounts of forces through our Saudi bases over the course of the logistic withdrawal period. There should be no concern for the safety of our primary supplier of oil.
Summary:
Can you believe a single word that any republican says at this point? I don't.