Political speeches on the war's anniversary have in common the promise of the impossible.
THE FIFTH anniversary of the invasion of Iraq prompted a flurry of speeches from President Bush and the Democratic candidates who hope to inherit the White House next year. Sadly, what they had in common was their failure to grapple with hard realities — beginning with the elusiveness of any clear or quick path toward Mr. Bush's promise of "victory," or that of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to "end this war."
Mr. Bush's address dwelt on the success of the initial military campaign of March 2003, then skipped ahead to the "surge" of the last year. The president deservedly claimed credit for launching the latter campaign, which has drastically reduced the level of violence in Iraq. But he went on to claim that, more than turning "the situation in Iraq around," the surge "has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror." That sounded at best premature, given the tenuousness of the security gains and the slowness of Iraqi leaders to strike political deals that could truly stabilize the country.
RLCC: The editor(s) of the Washington Post, responsible for this editorial, don't understand the definition of the term "success." There will never be success in Iraq that comes out of the invasion of Iraq. The only path to success is to disavow everything for which that invasion stands.
Of course the U.S. could stay in Iraq indefinitely and achieve success if the U.S. were to do toward Iraq what it should have done before the invasion, which was and is treat the Iraqi people like people rather than dogs under the Imperial table hardly fit for scraps or crumbs from the natural resources under the ground they've inhabited since time immemorial — not that oil is a good idea for burning the way the industrial revolution came to doing it.
The editor or editors stated that the "president deservedly claimed credit for launching the surge." Oh, come on. The surge was buying off people. It wasn't military in the usual sense of the word. The whole world could be rightly bought off if such buying were simply to be bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance. If the U.S. or any current imperial power were to change its heart and root from the selfish spirit to the giving and sharing spirit God looks for in humans souls, all would go better and better right up to the point where Heaven and Earth conflate anew.
It must be made extremely clear that it can never be right to do evil with a plan for whitewashing later. The uncleanness remains in all such cases. Nothing Bush does will alter that. He can either repent in earnest, admitting is huge sin, or not at all. No matter how Iraq turns out, he did a hugely evil thing. If Iraq turns out all right, it will definitely be in spite of Bush's evil. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
The editorial further states:
BOTH Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton propose withdrawing U.S. troops at the most rapid pace the Pentagon says is possible — one brigade a month. In the 16 months or so it would take to remove those forces, they envision the near-miraculous accomplishment of every political goal the Bush administration has aimed at for five years, from the establishment of a stable government to agreement by Iraq's neighbors to support it.
"...every political goal the Bush administration has aimed at for five years..." is just plain hogwash. The Bush administration has aimed for exactly what it has brought about. It wanted to destabilize. It wanted to divide to conquer. It wanted to ruin. It wanted to weaken and make sick. All the so-called goals that were stated leading up to the invasion were pure false propaganda. The Washington Post is just being the willing tool of the CIA and others. It is far from the first time and will be far from the last.