The "TV War" drags on in Iraq in a hot-again, cold-again, violent and alien desert where mission accomplished couldn't be further from the truth.
In between all of the fast-food runs and Starbucks stops - conveniences allotted to us by the hegemony of American might (God bless it) - America finds itself reminded every so often that the war in Iraq continues, despite our collective detachment. This past week, the TV War was thrust back into the limelight, barely muscling out "American Idol," on the stage of our current political-human drama - the presidential race.
As a people who believe themselves to be the moral beacons of humanity and flame bearers of hope, we have a curiously cut-and-dry dichotomy given to us in this election. And the decision is this: Will it be peace or a sense of blood-tainted responsibility to finish what we so haphazardly started?
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, told a congressional panel last week that security conditions in Iraq were "significant," yet "uneven," and that progress in the fractured, war-torn country was fragile and reversible. President George W. Bush echoed his sentiments in a speech a few days after, issuing an edict that the United States had averted failure in a war in which the mission had allegedly already been accomplished. Bush assured America that Petraeus would have "all the time he needs."
For a president who fancies his superhero alter ego as "The Decider," I guess the least I can do is admire his consistency.
The time Bush is referring to, of course, is the eventual time for withdrawal - a magical point in space and time when a stable pro-U.S. government will be set up, when Iraqis will lower their weapons and enjoy their freedoms allotted to them by us.
In 2007, prior to the much ballyhooed troop surge, we could not withdraw because violence was up. We couldn't cut and run, after all. It'd be a rushed and irresponsible decision to end a war that began on a rushed and irresponsible decision. Now we can't begin a withdrawal because violence is down.
Bush is caught in a Rodinian age of bronze, constantly coming up with new slogans and reasons to justify his great fraud.
How many Americans do you think questioned whether or not the "bad intelligence" we went into the desert over was purposeful?
There is a certain moral responsibility that binds us to Iraq - a sense of servitude to their people.
Shouldn't we have to close the same gates of hell that we opened in the first place?
This moral consequence may outweigh the pragmatic reasons for a withdrawal, so much so that the history text screaming at us on how we should've learned the lessons of nation building once and for all in Saigon may have to be ignored.
Many Iraqis already hate us for invading their land. What will they think if we leave them to die alone?
