I don't think "we" have a choice, because "we" are not the deciders. All "we" get to do is to decide which of the deciders has a better policy. Better for whom? Better for what?
On the one hand, you have the parties and factions who say that "we" cannot win in Iraq and on the other, you have the parties and factions who say that "we" cannot 'cut and run' or it would be a disaster for the "West".
Which is it?
The history of Vietnam is a case in point. During the Vietnam War, it was said by some parties and factions that withdrawing "our" troops from the conflict would mean that a 'bloodbath' would ensue. Nobody wants a 'bloodbath' (that would be immoral), so "we" must stay the course. On the other side of the party political, factional fence, you had people saying that we were only prolonging a conflict which we had no business being involved in, in the first place (that was immoral).
Was there the much feared 'bloodbath' after U.S. and Australian (among other) troops pulled out of Vietnam?
Essentially no.
Did the rest of Southeast Asia fall like dominos to Communist Party dictatorships after the end of the Vietnam War--a monolithic bloc which would become a military threat to America the West itself?
No. In fact, Vietnam today is in the throws of a capitalist boom! Just check the business pages of the official government newspaper, Nan Dhan.
http://www.nhandan.com.vn/english/business/
What's really going on between liberal and conservative political parties now is a debate on how best to maintain a presence in the Middle East, especially in the area formally known as Iraq. I say formally, because the old Iraqi State which was ruled by the Baath Party has now become a fractured political entity, poorly posing as a democracy to the world, but recognized by most of the internal population and externally as a governmental bureacracy imposed by outside powers onto a people, most of whom, who don't want it. This is the politcal reality. The question is how to "we" maintain our power in this part of the world, if the people don't want "us" or "our" governments?
This is what the public fight and posturing over who has the most courage, amongst the politicians, is about, to wit: how best to maintain controlling influence in Iraq and the Middle East, in a rapidly deteriorating situation--a legitimation crisis, if you will. On one of the two majority politcal party hands, you have people who are asserting that following the "Iraq Study Group"'s plan would be best--see http://www.usip.org/isg/. These include Senator Obama and the leader of the Opposition in Australia, Kevin Rudd. On the other side, you have conservatives like President Bush and the PM of Australia, John Howard who maintain that "we" need to pour more U.S. (and whoever else among the ruling classes of the world via their States is foolish enough to go along--not Howard) troops into Iraq to "stabilize" the existing, aforementioned Iraqi government and hope that after enough time, that government will be able to serve "us" in our goal of maintaining "our" power in this part of the world.
That's what going on. None of the deciders in this game really care about the people of Iraq--they never did and they never will. What they really care about is control over the oil spigot in Iraq--that is what they've always wanted and that is what the fight is about, to wit: how best to control that spigot. When I say "control", I mean power. The power to decide or to seriously influence a ruling group to make decisions in "our" favour when it comes to the production and distribution of oil which is under the soil of the area formally known as the State of Iraq.
The destruction of Iraq as a power player in the Middle East has been on the political agenda of all the invaders of that country for decades. That goal has been accomplished and now, it seems that former Iraq will most likely split up, like the former Yugoslavia and the former USSR. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shia States which emerge from this wreckage will be weaker and easier to control. All the factions arguing over what to do with the troops in Iraq will be pleased with this outcome. They only differ on how to get to this outcome most efficiently and how their plans will play to the people, who will be called on to vote for this or that faction in the coming elections.
Regards, Mike B)
http://happystiletto.blogspot.com/
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/