Iraq War: Is The End In Sight?
Written by Major Tom
Filed under: Global Politics
April 27, 2007
U.S. President George W. Bush has now one predicament in hand—either to end this Iraq troubles that he had mostly created all by himself and hold the Democrats responsible for it if the troops pullout does not go well or to remain in Iraq beyond this year and see the campaign through according to his own term; vetoing this recent war bill that calls for troops pullout by October 1 this year.
It remains to be seen.
The Democrats had scored an important victory the other day by steering through a 127 Billion war bill for Iraq and Afghanistan which would further fund U.S. war campaigns in these territories while calling for an abrupt end to the very destructive operation in Iraq six months from now. They (the Democrats) had expressly voiced out how their overwhelming victory in last November’s U.S. elections had actually declared what the American public want to do with the Iraq War—to pull their soldiers out of there.
The problem is, the Democrats hadn’t mustered the required two-thirds number of votes to make the bill insusceptible for veto by President Bush and any old guy would expect the odds to go in favor of Bush’s insistence to see the Iraq War through until threats by the enemies—Al-Qaeda and Baathists remnants—would disappear and situation in Iraq becomes stable.
Stability in Iraq is really a difficult objective where in reality, it would take years and years for constancy to ever set foot in that place where the two conflicting factions of Sunnis and Shiites are threatening to destroy each other and are even going at each other’s throat even while America remains there.
Vice President Dick Cheney once called this bill as a “surrender bill” and would merely encourage U.S. enemies all over the world to be bolder and more forthcoming and President Bush himself had stated that it would too incongruous a situation where U.S. soldiers doing their duties in war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan shall have to receive orders of capitulating 6,000 miles from Capitol Hill, from lawmakers who definitely are not their commanders—that would be entirely discouraging to the soldiers fighting over there the U.S. President added.
Most likely, President Bush would conditionally veto the bill mentioned above; approving the 127 Billion dollars fresh war funding while disapproving the October deadline provision set by the Democrats faction in Capitol Hill—and then haul this war well-over his term, which would end by next year. Especially now, that the freshly established Iraqi government have publicly declared that they need U.S. troops to remain farther, otherwise Iraq would be in total mayhem from threats of a very widespread civil war among conflicting tribes there and from enemies from within and without, where recent reports showed to be continuing to build-up through Syria and other borders.
Let us see what happens next.
This is a delemna for the next administration. Pretty sure G.W. will veto the bill and will get what he wants, but then after his administration that’s where the uncertainties start. Eventually, the U.S. has to withdraw from both countries, whetern they be able to establish stable government in both. We will surely pull our Canadian Forces out of Afghanistan after their mandated mission which I believe will end in 2008. We can’t just forever bleed if winning is not possible. Looks like Vietnam revisited..
Comment by vic — April 27, 2007 @ 9:50 am
To vic: That’s the problem vic; stability in Iraq—or even just a semblance of it—is like a farfetched idea that no amount of military might or money could ever attain. I think, this kind of proposition takes time to be achieved and no artificial intervention can ever succeed. I hope I am wrong.
Comment by Major Tom — April 27, 2007 @ 10:22 am
This poses a problem. Now that Iraqis need them for further protection, they’ll be pulling out. Now is the time to pull-out for them which I think is bad timing. However, in war, it’s always bad timing. For Iraq to stand on its own after US pull-out is the toughest question. What would happen without foreign troops there? Will peace and reconstruction prevail?
Politicians on the end of their career usually tries to mend things to be remembered positively. Well, I think it’s too late for that .
Comment by ipanema — April 27, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
To ipanema: Obviously, every party is finding the best possible solution in the ultra destructive and expensive war in Iraq and some see it as a complete pullout. But this might be impractical as of this moment. What could be viable is a good compromise, rulling out slowly and aiming to maintain a stabilizing force inside Iraq to protect them from total mayhem when American forces becomes lessened there; this time the United Nation may come in, and the stabilizing force may now be composed of troops from different countries.
Comment by Major Tom — April 28, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Stalemate. I guess. It will get vetoed. Wonder if they have the number to defeat the veto. I’m not an American, but those boys should be sent home soon. And Bush should serve in Iraq. Of course I’m kidding.
Comment by atticus — April 28, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
What does he care anyway? He’ll be leaving the White House in 2008. And chances are, a Democrat will be replacing him. Let him boil in his own stew…
Comment by snglguy — April 28, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
First time I read Newsweek and I was crying. I read the letters of the soldiers who died in the Iraqi war. I agree with you that the veto could be conditional… yes to the bill but no to the time limit. Why does Bush think he can impose American-style democracy to the whole world. That’s how all Westerners think. Even here in Cambodia… they think that their style could apply here. The culture is too different. Kung sa Pilipinas nga, kaya yata tayo nagka-ganito, nasobrahan ng western style democracy e, or maybe we apply it the wrong way.
Comment by Toe — April 28, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
America has the ‘Big Brother’ mentality. Protector, defender, savior.. etc. - kaya mahilig makialam.
I agree with Snglguy. What does Bush care anyway? He’d be out nex year.
Off topic: Major Tom, I really like your blog’s new look. Neat! Very neat!
Comment by rhodora — April 28, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
It reminds of the Vietnam war. Unfortunately we know what happened after the US pulled out. Vietnamization did not succeed. But the difference is Vietnam was a conflict of ideologies while Iraq is a conflict of sects. Sectarian violence is more troublesome to handle. The two beliefs should first learn to accommodate each other. That’s where the focus should be.
Comment by Schumey — April 29, 2007 @ 5:40 am
let iraqi people iron the crease of their own shirt. they survived for thousand years without america, why should they need them now? they should go back to where they belong.
Comment by curacha — May 2, 2007 @ 2:48 am
They had no business invading Iraq in the first place. I can also imagine how tough it would have been to be labeled as unpatriotic if you had not supported them at the start. Nonetheless, they’ve only created a bigger mess than it was.
Comment by eric — May 2, 2007 @ 8:28 am
To Atticus: Unfortunately for the Dems, despite their majority status, they couldn’t get that suffucient number to overcome a veto. And it looks like—as per press conference this morning—that Bush is set to veto the bill and leaves no hope for a Dems sponsored immediate troop pullout.
To sngl: That’s what mnakes this thing going on more complicated. Bush is set to prolong the Iraq campaign knowing that he wont be there to end it, but possibly someone from the opposition would be taking care of ending it. Looks like a Vietnam scenario to me, in a sense that the war started by one administration, fully escalated by another, and ended by yet another administration.
To Toe: I liked your thoughts Toie about the so-called ‘western -style’ democracy and laugh a little. Maybe we just got to much of it when it is not really apt for our kind of culture or setup. too much freedom for a poor and turbulent country.
To rhodora: Thanks for the nice words on my blog theme.
Anywayz, Like Toe said, it must be true what many had theorized that American style democracy can’t just be forced into a country like Iraq. It should take time and you couild say, it needs a generation to be nurtured. America must have been too presumptous that an ‘artificial insemination’ of democracy is all too possible, like test tube babies. It seems to be not the case.
To schumey: And that’s what many fear most where there could be total mayhem going on there if America pulls out immediately. Its a great dilemma going on out there. Even I find myself swaying like a pendulum on my views about this instant issue. I have soime inclination that US should avoid a prolonged campaighn in Iraq and bring back their soldiers home, before more of them get killed by wanton violence.
But on the one hand, I also worry that a pullout now will leave Iraq in tatters.
Which is which? I hope there is a compromise to this. A middleway that becomes the ideal solution.
To curacha: That’s a good point curacha and it may be one ideal option, or the possible middle way I am talking about. Let them take care of their concerns; they should come out as a stronger nation, if ever.
To eric: I remember that time where before Operation Shock and Awe, I was thinking if ever America had just opeted to asssasinate Saddam Hussein because that’s seems to be what Bush had wanted primarily, to take down Saddam. I was thinking then that the war Bush was entering to wwould be sop destructive and would surely involve the lives of innocent civilians—old men, women and children. It turn out that it is really a big mess, as I had sen it initially.
And to think, now that they found out that chemical weapons may not be existent there or if ever, it was not so prevalent as initially suspecyted.
And of course, it became clearer to the world that Saddam had no, or very minimal connection with Al-Qaeda–which Bush was really after in the first place.
Comment by Major Tom — May 2, 2007 @ 10:27 am