Published Aug 7, 2007, 8:14pm
As more "news" continues their ascension to the front page of the Daily News, as well as on Fox Five, it's assuring to know that Bill O' Reilly has asserted that the New York Times is finally "wising up", after the publishing of an editorial in the times last Monday, reporting on the military progress in Iraq.
But never mind the ignorance in the words of Bill O'Reilly. The fact is that the conditions on the ground in Iraq have, indeed improved. Troop morale is high. Fatality Rates are down about a third since the surge commenced. In the words of New York Times reporters Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, "Army and Marine Units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units," and "providing basic services- electricity, fuel, clean water, and sanitation- to the people." We've even found a secretary of defense willing to express the deep emotional wound the war has had on this country.
So is he right? Has the tide changed? Is there at least something to look forward to now? Well, militarily there certainly has been some progress, and not reporting that would be depriving the American people of the truth. But for democrats to use this as an excuse to not push for legislation for a withdrawal of troops would be in contradiction to what lawmakers have been stressing ever since the invasion began; their simply cannot be a military solution to the problem with face in Iraq.
Throughout all this praise, people seem to now have a propensity of ignoring the fact that there's been no political progress a bit of understatement. I say that's an understatement since to say there's been no political progress leaves open the possibility that there's been somewhat of a stalemate when it comes to the Iraqi government, when in fact there's been a complete deterioration when it comes to the idea of political progress; the inability to pass an oil revenue sharing bill, the incessant boycotts.
Sure, the administration and several people will try to point out that within time, the violence will cease and ultimately, there'll be major steps taken when it comes to political reconciliation. For example, boycotts such as those by the parliamentary bloc loyal to Maqtada Al-sadr would be less likely to happen, given the fact that with the reduced violence, the bombing of a revered shrine might never had happened, which was the driving force behind the boycott in the first place. Fair enough. But considering just how poorly the governments performance has been- the vacation that they commenced Wednesday, not that it matters, considering nearly every facet has been on vacation at some point when they shouldn't have beforehand, as well the permanent vacation that we can now expect from the Sunni's largest political bloc- just isn't good enough when it comes to shedding the precious blood of our troops.
To diverge a bit from my main point, one of the most over looked parts of the decrease in violence has been the administrations arming of Sunni insurgents to fend off the created Al Qaeda threat. This has proven to be a nice strategy in the short term. In fact, Al-Anabar province, once considered an "insurgent hotbed" has seen a stark decline in violence as a result of the arming of the insurgents.
But the password to this administrations failed policy in Iraq and lack of an exact strategy has been short sightedness. So, my question is what happens if this strategy continues to work, and Al Qaeda has been relatively ousted? Than what? Since nearly everyone realizes, evident by the failure of the completion of an oil revenue sharing bill, to Sadr's presence both inside and outside of the government, that all anyone in Iraq wants is sheer power. So doesn't that essentially mean that we're likely to just see a civil war again, and America will once again be the enemy at large? Never mind the hypocrisy in the fact that we refuse to open communication with countries throughout the region, particularly Iran, in part because they're fueling the violence in Iraq. I'm interested in seeing the polls when, within the near future, these weapons, having been purchased by American tax dollars, are turned against our troops.
Barack Obama seems to have the right idea. He knows we need to open communication with Iran and Syria, without laughable preconditions that, in the case of Iran, would be completely counterproductive, considering Iran's current provocation of violence in Iraq, as well as its' future role throughout the entire region. He knows we need to move out of Iraq and stop fighting the dozens of independent militant groups as well the supposed threat of Al Qaeda- an Al Qaeda that bears little relationship to the one that attacked us on 9/11- and into the actual threat in Pakistan and Afghanistan, even if by the time he's in office it'll be about eight two years too late.
Fortunately, the administration has just 16 months left in office. But considering the arming of Sunni Arab insurgents is nothing but a course headed for failure in the near future, and the other circumstances the administration will come to face - their thought of a nuclear Iran the first that comes to mind - 16 months might give them just enough time to cause a whole lot more trouble.
I just hate it.
