Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Mission Accomplished? Iraq 4 Years Later...

19:41 / 23.03.07

The US war machine and allies have been in Iraq over four years (this time) and I was going to title this thread 4 More Years?, implying that the whole ugly mess might continue that much longer, but in the news today I noticed the Democrats pushed through a withdrawal bill;

The US House of Representatives defied the threat of a veto from President Bush today by passing binding legislation requiring the withdrawal of all American combat troops from Iraq by August 31, 2008.

...which is a positive sign, although not without it's scary side;

At the end of a bitterly-contested debate, the House voted by a narrow 218-212 margin to pass a $122 billion war funding Bill on the condition that US combat operations ceased before next September - or even earlier if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks such as improving security.

$122 billion? 'kinhell.

So anyway, is this just freeing up resources to attack Iran? Is the Democrat majority starting to tell? What will post-war Iraq turn into? What knock-on effects are we likely to see internationally? Will Afghanistan be next on the Axis of Ceasefire?

Mostly I am optimistic, but have been disappointed so harshly so many times I'm wary of getting my hopes up. How about you?

BrianFitzgerald

23:35 / 23.03.07

Not to be a bubble burster, but it's highly unlikely that this will make it through the Senate. If it does, Bush can and will veto it.

Still no end in sight, really.

BrianFitzgerald

12:22 / 28.03.07

On the other hand:

Iraq pullout deadline survives Senate

Defying President Bush, the Democratic-led Senate on Tuesday turned back a Republican attempt to remove a call for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq from a $124 billion war-spending bill.

Though the 50-48 vote is far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto, Democrats said the measure was a sign of growing support for bringing the four-year-old war to an end.

14:09 / 28.03.07

Senate set to pass spending bill with timetable for troop pullout, but president has vowed to reject measure

this week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated that Senate Republicans would not use their power to filibuster the spending bill, even though Democrats stood little chance of mustering the 60 votes needed to overcome such a GOP maneuver.

McConnell and other GOP lawmakers said the decision reflected their desire to put a bill on the president's desk quickly so he could veto it and Congress would be forced to pass a spending measure without the limits.

Hmm. So it's headed for a deliberate veto. Why? Interesting opinion piece here on what will happen after Bush vetoes the bill;

Bush's veto should be seen as a certainty, because of what just happened in the Senate. Since the Democrats took over, every Senate bill on Iraq has had to face a cloture vote (where the GOP threatens to filibuster, and 60 votes are needed to continue action on the bill). The Democrats have lost all of these votes, it should be noted, by various margins. But suddenly, Senate Republicans have politely decided to not use this parliamentary tool, meaning the Iraq war bill will require only a simple majority vote.
...
Bush wants to veto this bill -- for several political reasons. Since it would be only Bush's second veto ever (and since Iraq is a big subject anyway), it is guaranteed to be front-page news everywhere -- which conveniently pushes Alberto Gonzales' troubles off the radar screen. A veto would allow Bush to "stand up for his principles," something he just loves to do. Bush really does think history's going to vindicate him on Iraq, so he sees this as another chapter of "doing the right thing" in his memoirs. Most importantly, this sends the ball back to the Democrats' court -- Bush will veto the bill and demand a "clean" bill with just the $100 billion he needs for the war, with no strings attached. The heavy media spin from the White House will be: "Democrats must act NOW to pass a clean bill." Since the Pentagon's Iraq money is about to run out, this will put things on a very tight timetable before Republicans will start the chorus of: "Democrats are not funding the troops in the field."

20:46 / 29.03.07

So, some troops might be coming home. That's certainly a good thing. But what about our private mercenary armies? Blackwater and all those people? They call them "contractors" on CNN. I read an article somewhere saying that all the troops we bring home are just going to be replaced by more of these mercenaries, so this will hardly be much of an improvement for the people of Iraq will it? Not bad for the pocketbook of anybody with money invested in Blackwater or DynCorp, but still.

Speaking of the people of Iraq, has anybody noticed that they're the ones being blamed for everything that's happening there? For all the failures? It comes from Democrats and Republicans alike, like that just can't believe that these people wouldn't stand up and fight for the corrupt sham puppet government we created for them. "It's like, no matter how many times we hose them down with napalm, they still don't want to salute our flags."

It really doesn't give me any faith at all when I hear people on both sides of the aisle talking like this. It certainly doesn't give me any hope for the people of Iraq (or for any of us really). Sorry I couldn't find the link to the article I mentioned above, about the soldiers coming home (well, supposedly they're coming home) being replaced by mercenaries. I'll post it as soon as I can track it down.