![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
The Next 4,000Posted on Mar 24, 2008WASHINGTON—Four thousand. When U.S. military deaths in Iraq hit a round number, as happened Sunday, there’s usually a week or so of intense focus on the war—its bogus rationale, its nebulous aims, its awful consequences for the families of the dead. Not likely this time, though. The nation is too busy worrying about more acute crises, some of them real—the moribund housing market, the teetering financial system, the flagging economy—and some of them manufactured, such as the shocking revelation that race can still be a divisive issue in American society. So the fact that 4,000 men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces have been killed in Iraq is somehow less compelling than the zillionth playing of snippets from a sermon that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preached more than six years ago. For now, that is: Sooner or later, attention is bound to turn back to the war and the stark choice voters will face in November. It may happen sooner. A few weeks ago, it looked as if Iraq might be entering another cycle of headline-grabbing violence. Now, the increase in mayhem is clear. On Sunday alone, more than 60 people were killed in several incidents, including a car bombing. Insurgents even sent rockets crashing into Baghdad’s ostensibly secure Green Zone, a rare occurrence. While the violence hasn’t risen to the levels at this time a year ago, when the country seemed to be coming apart, it is clear that both civilian and military deaths are on the rise. Dick Cheney, who long ago told us that the insurgency was “in the last throes, if you will,” was asked last week about polls showing that two-thirds of Americans don’t think the fight in Iraq is worth it. Cheney’s response: “So?” At least Cheney was being candid, if breathtakingly arrogant. He and George W. Bush have never cared what the American people might think about this elective war. A little bamboozling was necessary at the beginning—overblown claims about weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds and being “greeted as liberators” by smiling Iraqi children. Once that hurdle was surmounted, and once Saddam Hussein’s government had been destroyed, there was essentially nothing anyone could do to force the Bush administration to bring the war to an end. Let me revise that, since on three counts it’s not quite accurate. First, the war did end once, an occasion Bush marked nearly five years ago in his “Mission Accomplished” speech; according to Agence France-Presse, 97 percent of the 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq came after Bush stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier and declared major combat operations over. Second, we keep calling this conflict a war but it’s really an occupation, though the Bush administration doesn’t like to use that word; it must not test well with focus groups. Third, the American people did what they could by snatching control of Congress from the Republicans. But even if Democrats in the House had the political will to end the occupation by cutting off funding, they don’t have the 60 votes they would need in the Senate. That’s how we arrived at 4,000. And from the way John McCain talks, there’s no telling what round-number milestones we’d have to mark if he were to become president. On Iraq, McCain vows to continue the occupation as long as it takes for the United States to win. Like Bush and Cheney, he is quick to define any kind of withdrawal as defeat—but he makes no real attempt to describe what victory would look like. He at least realizes that the repressive and ambitious government of Iran has been the real beneficiary of the Bush administration’s blundering in Iraq—but the way he talks about Iran is just plain frightening. The 71-year-old McCain’s recent misstatement that al-Qaida terrorists were being aided by the Iranian regime—quickly corrected by Sen. Joseph Lieberman in a whispered aside—might have been just a senior moment. Or it might have reflected an intention to do something precipitous about Iran’s growing stature in the region. Either way, scary.
It’s understandable that Americans are riveted by the most exciting presidential nomination campaign in decades. It’s natural that they’re worried about the shrinking value of their homes and their 401(k) plans. Come the fall, though, they’re going to have to decide on Iraq: Bring the troops home, as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say they will do. Or keep them in, as McCain pledges—and watch the numbers continue to rise.
Previous item: Greed Is Not Good Next item: Conservatives Beware Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By bob brendle, March 26 at 6:40 am # StreetThe street you live on leads to that white house on the hill.
By Trigger finger, March 26 at 3:54 am # How many Dead?4000 DEAD? Come on, you got to be kidding me! I thought it was only like 16 or so? I mean that’s all the flag draped coffins I saw? Are you sure, 4000? That’s a lot! Gee’s that can’t be right. I turn on the news at least twice a week and I never saw anything about 4000 dead, or any dead for that matter! Think about it, that can’t be right because combat operations in Iraq ended in about 2003 I think the President said. 4000? I can’t even count that high! Thats impossible! You better get your facts straight before you say 4000 dead! Or, is that just a joke?
By MilwGonzo, March 25 at 6:33 pm # War CriminalsAssuming a Democrat wins in November (and what was once highly probable looks distressingly less so now), will Bush, Cheney and the other architects of the invasion of Iraq be brought to justice as war criminals? It is staggering to think McCain even has a chance to win the election given his alignment with Bush and his open embrace of the prospect of decades of occupation. Watching the Frontine titled “Bush’s War” is truly nauseating.
By bozhidar bob balkas, March 25 at 10:20 am # and domestic policies go, invasion/occupation/defacto dismemberment of i’q may be evaluated as success. h. we forgotten bombings of hironaga? w. no sigle cause for this attrocity? can one posit even single cause for it? yes, reasons r posited but not causes. a person investigating a fire does not resonate w. reasons for it but searches for causes. finding cause(s) and removing it such a cause will never ever cause another fire. invasions r caused. war(s) r caused. r they studied anywhere? nowhere to my knowledge. we know some causes for warfare; others we can postulate; still others discover if we would study them. fear, greed, revenge, hatred, supremacism, ethnocentricity, duality of nature; of which we r part, ergo also evilgood just like it can be. this doesn’t mean that we cannot do less evil, we can. if we cannot- but first we must test it- then we r doomed to stay in perpetual anguish/fear/hatred.
By msgmi, March 25 at 9:15 am # Cheney et al have their sights set on the realization of the neoCON new world order by sacrificing their neighbor’s warriors who he said ‘VOLUNTEERED?’ for the mission. And 30 percent of Americans think Cheney et al are steering America in the right direction. Victory & Glory have truly clouded whatever common sense is still left. No need to worry, with McCaine in office the neoCON Victory will be a step closer with each casualty.
By david, March 25 at 6:22 am # End the War????Hey!!! I’ve got Halliburton and KBR stock! Keep the war going!!! It’s making me rich!! What’s a few lives where money is concerned? Besides, we’re spreadin’ FREEDOM!! FREEDOM!!! God’s own gift to mankind!!! How much more noble can a cause be??? Sheesh! Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article