Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Quotes du Jour on the War

In the aftermath of the most deadly bombing since the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq began, President Bush praises the Iraqi government for professing to care to keep its citizens alive (not, mind you, for doing anything to further that end). He said:

"I appreciate the fact that the Iraqi government is anxious to get security inside the capital of the country . . . That is a good sign.

It is a good sign that there is a sense of concern and anxiety. It means that the government understands they have a responsibility to protect their people."

"It is a "good sign" that Iraqi officials are distressed by mass carnage in broad daylight in the country's capital? Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

-- SUZANNE NOSSEL

If there is a sectarian war in Iraq today, or perhaps several sectarian wars, we have to understand that this was latent in the country, and in the state, and in the society all along. It was not the only possible outcome, because it had to be willed and organized, but it was certainly high on the list of probabilities. (The Saddam Hussein regime, which thrived on the worst form of "divide and rule," certainly represented a standing invitation to run this risk.)

In other words, those who now deplore and decry the "civil war" (or the "civil wars") must, in order to be serious, admit that they would have deplored such an outcome just as much if it had not happened on America's watch or had (like Rwanda) been something that we could have pretended to watch as disinterested or—even worse—uninterested spectators.

-- CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

Were the United States to disengage, both Arab Sunnis and Shiites would have to take responsibility for their own security (as the Kurds have doing been all along). Where these three groups are not naturally separated by geography, they would be forced to find ways to stabilize relations with each other. That would most likely involve violence as well as talks, and some forcing of civilians from their homes. But all this is happening already, and there is no saying which ethno-religious group would be most favored by a reduction of the United States footprint.

One reason for optimism on that score is that the violence itself has been separating previously mixed populations, reducing motives and opportunities for further attacks. That is how civil wars can burn themselves out.

In any case, it is time for the Iraqis to make their own history.

-- EDWARD LUTTWAK

Supporters of Bush's war policy would love a vote on a full funding cutoff right now because they know that, at this moment, they could win it. They would love responsibility for the failures in Iraq to fall not on an administration that planned its policy so badly and carried it out so incompetently. Far better for them to heap blame on the war's opponents for "losing faith."

And they know, as the war's opponents should, that in a democracy whose constitution accords so much power to the president, turning around even a failed war policy takes time, persuasion, organizing, legislative strategizing and pressure.

The impatience of the administration's critics is entirely understandable. But it would be a shame if impatience got in the way of a sensible long-term strategy to bring America's engagement in this war to as decent an end as possible as quickly as possible -- even if not as quickly as they'd like. The anti-surge resolution is a necessary first step, which is why those who are against a genuine change in our Iraq policy are fighting so hard to stop it.

-- E.J. DIONNE

At a time when only nine percent of the American people want President Bush to send more troops to Iraq (according to the latest Fox News poll); at a time when 64 percent of the people believe Congress “has not been assertive enough…in challenging the Bush administration’s conduct of the war” (Newsweek poll); at a time when 61 percent want the Senate to pass a resolution opposing the Bush troop hike (Gallup); at a time when 55 percent trust the majority Democrats to make Iraq decisions and only 32 percent trust Bush (Newsweek poll again); at a time when Americans consider Iraq to be the most important issue on the national agenda (CBS and CNN polls); and at a time when voting Americans, having just erased Republican rule on Capitol Hill, clearly wish that are clearly signaling that they want Congress to do something, or at least say something, about Bush’s ruinous war…..

The Republicans in the U.S. Senate have shut down the chamber’s scheduled debate on Iraq.

-- DICK POLMAN

Photo of Iraqi troops by Ahmad al-Rubaye/AFP

1 comment:

cognitorex said...

Here's a Meaty No-Confidence Solution
Eschewing an attempt to impeach this clearly incompetent commander in chief (CIC), the legislature should construct a bill that defunds all mideast military engagement by a time certain unless the CIC position is placed in the hands of new executive body.
Given the damage to US interests world wide already extant and the unthinkable possibilities of what this CIC might unleash upon us and the world in his remaining 2 years, how could a hiatus to his reign not be the superior choice?
(excerpt from cognitorex blogspot)