Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: The whole Iraq withdrawal thing

By Andrew Moran     Dec 6, 2009 in Politics
United States President Barack is adding tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan but supposedly is withdrawing combat troops from Iraq. Will that happen? Like the old Groucho Marx joke, "Blood's not thicker than money."
It is simply not going to happen. It was quite convenient, as it always is for a politician running for the highest office, to promise something without actually delivering on it while as Commander-in-Chief. We are constantly fed lies by the candidate of either a humble foreign policy (promised by George W. Bush during the 2000 Presidential Election) or by getting rid of the Department of Education (promised by Ronald Reagan during the 1984 Presidential Election) or another major quagmire; the ending of the Viet Nam war (promised by a number Presidents throughout the 1960s and the 1970s.
A number of Democratic Presidential candidates during the 2008 Presidential Primaries promised withdrawing troops but only two were sincere about it; Congressman Denis Kucinich of Ohio and former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel. Each candidate said they would withdraw major combat troops within several months of taking office. Even during one MSNBC primary debate the late Tim Russert asked each candidate if they would “commit to having all combat forces out of Iraq by the end of their first term” and not surprisingly the top three candidates, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton and former Senator John Edwards all denied to make the promise because they know that the special interests, lobbyists and personal bank accounts would not permit them to do such a thing.
While President Obama took office it was, indeed, a good procrastination to “looking into withdrawing combat forces from Iraq within the next eighteen months,” however, this will not happen because of a) violence is escalating in Iraq b) most constituents haven’t researched his “plan” because it does state that it will leave at least 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq (please note that troops is actually undefined so they could be trainers, police, UN-esque troops, etc.)
When President Bush, the Republicans and the Democrats voted to approve invading Iraq, the then State-Senator Obama, supposedly, was against the entire war but when he was elected into the Senate, he voted for the war 100 per cent of the time. If you want someone in higher office you look at their voting record and you look at the records of Dennis Kucinich who introduced legislation HR 1234 and, once again, not surprising, none of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates co-sponsored or even supported the bill.
In the end, the war in Iraq will wage on, even passed President Obama’s tenure and a United States presence will be there indefinitely until the empire collapses, like all kingdoms do, due to financial reasons and overstretching of the military.
Afghanistan will be even worse than Iraq because Pakistan, the next country the United States will start a battle with, is the neighbor of Afghanistan. Right now President Obama is killing hundreds of civilians and the American people should riot for having innocent Afghani blood on his hands. But since it is a Black Democrat who promised the moon, they will not.
Maybe it’s like what Max Keiser said, “All you have to do to make an American happy is to give them a box of doughnuts and a gun.”
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about War iraq, United states military, Obama
More news from
Latest News
Top News