The Iraq report and politics
Submitted from Vass
The question of the day has to be the fact that Gen. David H. Petraeus will be addressing Congress today. That report, being given as I write, has massive political ramification as well the long term effects on our nation. From what I have heard at this time, neither party will be completely pleased with the report I am hearing. But that leads to a bigger problem.
Overall the Republicans want to hear that the war is going well and that the Iraqis are taking over for U.S. troops. Democrats want to hear that the war is as they have long claimed a failed effort. The public though wants to hear that there is a timeframe by which they can expect to have our loved ones home.
The summary has been stated that ‘the surge has been effective, Iraqi forces are slowly making inroads to taking control of their own country, and it may be possible to see the start of a withdrawal in the summer of next year.’ That is a near direct quote from Gen. Petraeus as he has spoken live. In addition troops will be removed from December up to July 2008, to reach pre-surge levels at that time.
So what does this mean? We can expect that several of the Democrats, especially the leading 3 Presidential candidates will not be satisfied. Already Senator Clinton has stated
And the other candidates have made similar comments.
On the other side will be the Republicans and their Presidential hopefuls. They have backed the President and the military from day one. Continuing to do so based on this report means that they will be identified for the continued fighting our soldiers will go through. Considering the large numbers of the public that is hoping for the end of this war in a relatively quick manner, this will not bode well for many during upcoming elections.
But why is this political at all? Did this nation learn anything from Korea and Viet Nam? Have we not realized that when politics override, or guide, decisions of an active war and the commanders waging it, that it inevitably leads to the wrong decisions and increased American deaths?
I was speaking with a philosopher (an actively teaching and writing philosopher) friend of mine over the weekend. She mentioned something that I thought was quite important. She seeks the ideal, the conceptual best path, and is upset that America does not try to attain more of that path. I can understand that and in part agree with it. I think much of the nation would also like to follow that path. But such a path is not completely feasible in real world actions.
When Generals state, as many have said from day one, that this will be a long term battle (some even stating it could take up to a decade) all politicians ignored the statements and left the troops ill-equipped for the challenges that have faced them. I believe all the politicians were afraid of telling such a truth to their constituents. To make such a statement would easily open them up to challengers and cost them elections. Rather they all stated, initially, that this could be resolved quickly and with little loss of American life. Obviously they were wrong and the Generals were correct.
This is an interesting question facing the next President and the nation as a whole. This may well be the single most important issue facing America in the next 10 years, definitely the next 5. If we run, we will lose respect as a nation among other nations and fanatical groups across the world. Without a strong resolution, enemies of our nation will simply conclude that the will of America is weak and if they can out-wait the initial onslaught against them the commitment against them will crumble and fade. That is a troubling image to present to the world.
On the other side is the fact that if we stand and fight until we succeed, we will suffer internally as political groups drive a wedge between various factions within the nation. As families lose loved ones, which is an inevitable outcome of warfare, the divisions will grow as will the anger of nations around the world.
The answer is a difficult one. Like most answers, the middle ground is best, but hard to maintain. Since we have not decided to make Iraq a commonwealth, which I feel is the only winning strategy, we must seek the most reasonable outcome. Emphasizing the political aspects may allow elections to go in one direction or another, but such posturing will cause greater damage, in my opinion. I see that right now, all the candidates are posturing for votes as opposed to having their own convictions. The only 2 frontrunners that are perhaps convincingly maintaining their positions without regard to politics are Senator McCain and Obama. Both are somewhat blindsided though, I believe.
So the questions we must ask ourselves, are the presidential candidates taking positions that are the best for the nation, or the best to gain politically? Do we want a President, or any political leader, that cannot adjust their position based on the facts as they are presented? Can we have political leaders that can tell us the truth, and act in the best manner for the nation regardless of the backlash that short-term emotions ultimately evoke?
If we fail in this matter, if we act impulsively and without long-term foresight, we will suffer for perhaps decades. There are many issues involved in the current war, Iran, terrorist groups (not the concept of terrorism) like Al Quida, Israel, America’s prominence in the world, and yes oil too. If we just focus on one item at the exclusion of the others, we will fail to do the best thing. Again I mention best, not right. While I wish we could follow a path that is ideal, the reality is that there is no such path to take in regard to the current situation.
But this is what I think, what do you think?
admin @ September 10, 2007