Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Repugnant to the core

Via TPMCafe

GOP House Leader John Boehner made the argument today that the Iraq war did not begin in Iraq or on 9/11 but rather in 1979, with the Iran taking hostages in the American embassy.

Why did he make such a asinine statement?

The answer is that the Repugnicans do not want a debate on the war in Iraq.
Also via TPMCafe, here is an excerpt of the strategy letter sent to Repugnican Congress members:

"We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose. "

So, as per the Repugnican leadership, the failure in Iraq cannot be examined, and hundreds more of American soldiers and thousands more of Iraqis must continue to be fed into the meat-grinder, because otherwise the Repugnicans will look bad.


Biswajit said...


I agree with the Republicans to some extent in this matter. If the US leaves Iraq without clearly winning the war, Islamic fundamentalist groups in the world will take it as a victory for themselves. They will then become bolder and attack nearby targets, such as India, with more frequency. As an Indian citizen, I don't see how the US leaving Iraq will be beneficial to India in the long term.

Of course, I do think that the US should not be the only country to bear the burden. The war should be transitioned to an international force, probably under UN supervision.

Arun said...


Indians in the Middle East contribute as much to the Indian economy as the software industry. US destabilization of the Middle East is not in India's interests.

The world is not going to step in to help the US in Iraq, at least not while Bush is President. Bush's unlateralism has made that highly unlikely.

For the US to win in Iraq, the US must put of the order of half-a-million men there. For that, the US must mobilize and must call a draft. Of course, the politicians are not willing to do that. Victory is not all that important.

For the US to remain in an indefinite stalemate in Iraq is just as emboldening to the Islamists as a US withdrawal. It would be better for the US to withdraw than to keep bleeding or to expand the war by attacking Iran.

Finally, just as important as Iraq is Afghanistan, and the effort in Iraq is diverting resources away from Afghanistan. A US withdrawal from Iraq would enable it to devote enough attention to the war in Afghanistan. Whey you say Islamists will attack targets such as India, that basically means Pakistani jihadis will target India. The US holding Afghanistan will keep Pakistan in check. A US win in Iraq but loss in Afghanistan will allow Pakistan to unleash its jihadis on India.