The Iraq War Is Over?

In an opinion piece in the April 30th issue of the Guardian, Gary Younge declares "The Iraq war is over. It is the moment for Democrats to show real leadership".

It's over? Who won?

Does anyone, including Mr Younge, really believe that if the Americans leave Iraq (other Coalition members are seldom mentioned) that the killings will stop? Will we really have peace in our time? Mr. Younge does not say.

"If President Bush's veto is not challenged tomorrow, thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US troops are certain to perish", the sub-heading claims.

Who is killing all these Iraqis, and why should these killings stop if the Coalition troops leave? Are these killings being committed by the potential winners in Iraq, who Mr. Younge doesn't mention?

After giving the tradition Guardian view of the relationship between the American people and their military, Mr. Younge says "Finally, in a nation with no safety net, the military is one of the few government-backed means of advancement for the poor".

Perhaps Mr. Younge can explain how people advance through government backing, apart from being one of its employees. It is odd that he mentioned the G.I.Bill in his article, and its success, yet says there are neither social social programs or a safety net.

There is absolutely no reason why the writer should not be aware of the dozens of social programs in the United States, easily googled on the Internet.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-13-federal-entitlements_x.htm

We can only wonder at his competence, or motives, in making such an obvious error.

"I was living in a trailer with my grandmother," says Darrell Anderson, 25, who earned a purple heart in Iraq and later went awol. "I was broke and I needed education and healthcare, and if I had to go to war for them that was just what I had to do. Going to the military was my last chance. My last option."

Canadians have been well aware of Mr. Anderson for quite some time, his varying stories, and willingness to tell anyone what he feels they want to hear.

http://www.marxist.com/iraq-war-veteran-darrell-anderson050307.htm

Few here in Canada will be missing him.

"If all else fails, you can yomp and shoot your way to the American dream".

Yomp? If only it was that easy! Shooting your way to the American Dream has been tried, certainly, but has usually met with greater success elsewhere.

What, it might be asked, is this "American Dream" he refers to? I suspect Mr. Younges idea of this dream, judging by the tone of his article, would be quite cynical. Would he ever consider what the British dream might be? Or the German or Australian dream? I doubt he has ever thought far.

"The showdown between the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress over the war in Iraq currently hinges on which side can claim ownership of the troops' interests, and harness that public affection to bolster their position".

It is the military leadership and the Copmmander in Chief who are responsible for the troops interest, not the US Congress or the Democratic party. If there has been neglect in the welfare of any troops then their leaders will make this known. Mr. Younge obviously knows little of the US Constitution, or chooses to ignore it.

"President Bush has requested more money from Congress for the war. Congress has passed a bill that gives him more than he requested so long as he sets a timetable for withdrawing the troops. Bush has vowed to veto the bill, effectively demanding a blank cheque for the war".

Mr. Younge has choosen to overlook completely all the pork in this bill, well over $20 Billion worth, used to bribe those members who might otherwise have voted differently.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201883.html

It is a bill that shames everyone who voted for it.

"The Democrats do not have enough votes to override the veto".

Obviously not everyone can be bribed, surely a healthy sign.

"Bush cannot get the money without Congressional approval. For as long as the stalemate continues no money can be earmarked for the war, and at some stage the cash will dry up. In these deliberations the plight of Iraqis, who are dying in their scores every day, is subordinated to more local concerns: which side can convince the public that they are standing their ground to protect the troops, and thereby force the other side to compromise before the money runs out.You would think this would be a slam-dunk for theDemocrats".

The cash will not dry up. The American people, who Mr. Younge acknowledges strongly admire their military, will not allow that to happen. If he had thought much about his earlier remarks, instead of just including them as the usual cliches, he would realize this. And, again, he makes the suggestion that if the Americans leave Iraq the killings will somehow cease. That is highly unlikely, which is probably why Mr. Younge is avoiding this scenario.

"Not only is Bush weak, but so is his standing with the troops. Since he announced the surge, the US death toll has remained steady at around three a day, whilethe situation on the ground has deteriorated and theIraqi government has disintegrated".

This is not any evidence whatsoever that the President's standing with the troops is weak, and is in fact known to be untrue. If he had any evidence to the contrary there is little doubt he would have included it in his article.

"Last month camethe debacle at Walter Reed hospital, where wounded veterans testified to lying in rooms infested with mice and cockroaches, with mould on the walls".

The person responsible was fired and how the US President is responsible for mould on hospital walls, or how it relates to the war in Iraq, remains unsaid.

Mr. Younge then goes on to Jessica Lynch and the Pat Tillman tragedy, though what connection this has to the war in Iraq is also left unclear. Is he suggesting that the terrorists have the moral high ground in Iraq, not the American people or thier military? The suggestion is certainly there.

"All of this provides ample space for the Democrats to establish an alternative narrative for both supporting the troops and stopping the war. One that says the best way to support them is to remove them from a war they cannot win, and return them home where they will be cared for".

It is not up to the public to care for the military, it is up to the military to protect and defend the public. One can only wonder at what Mr. Younge's opinion of the role of the military might be. While the US military might be quite comfortable on their American bases, being cared for there is not their raison d'etre.

"An opportunity to represent the people who elected them, implement their mandate, and in so doing fulfil their constitutional duty to check and then balance executive power. Like most acts of principle, making this move carries significant political risk.

The executive Branch of the US government also has a balance of power, and the American system was designed with this in mind. And of course if the American people were behind the Democrats there would be little political risk whatsoever. But of course the Democratic Party, far moreso than a Guardian commentator, understnads this quite well.