Why we can't leave Iraq

We can't just take our toys and go home from Iraq. Why?

Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 ostensibly to bolster the Communist ideals in that country, but more likely was there for the same reason everyone goes there-- to secure the oil and trade routes. It was also a "last throes" effort to show military dominance in a crumbling empire. We went in to stop them, in our ongoing fight against Communism, but also because I think we knew they were in their last throes and wanted to hand their asses to them one last time. We backed the Mujahidin, who were not only tired of people invading their country but were religious Muslims who disliked the atheist Communists. After ten years of fighting, the Soviets gave up in 1989 and pulled out of Afghanistan.

The Soviet occupation resulted in a mass exodus of over 5 million Afghans who moved into refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. More than 3 million alone settled in Pakistan. Faced with mounting international pressure and the loss of approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of Mujahideen opposition forces trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later, in 1989.

Following the removal of the Soviet forces in 1989, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. The USSR continued to support the regime of Dr. Najibullah (formerly the head of the secret service, Khad) until its downfall in 1992. However, the absence of the Soviet forces resulted in the downfall of the government as it steadily lost ground to the guerrilla forces.

As the vast majority of the elites and intellectuals had either been systematically eliminated by the Communists, or escaped to take refuge abroad, a dangerous leadership vacuum came into existence. Fighting continued among the various Mujahidin factions, eventually giving rise to a state of warlordism. The chaos and corruption that dominated post-Soviet Afghanistan in turn spawned the rise of the Taliban in response to the growing chaos. [Wikipedia]

We just left them there! We didn't act as a stabilizing force, we didn't try to help them rebuild their infrastructure, we didn't try to help them establish a democratic (or any other kind) of government, and as you saw in the Wikipedia quote, we even left the Soviets backing the Najibullah regime. We treated them like whores-- we got what we wanted, put our pants back on, and tossed a Benjamin on the bed where Afghanistan was left weeping and wondering what happened.

And you know what happened next-- the Taliban went crazy, stoned women, blew up statues thousands of years old, and coddled their favorite son, Osama Bin Laden, who to them was a heroic fighter who had dedicated his life to fighting the Soviets and protecting his newfound home. He of course went on to attack us on 9/11, and though I don't have the expertise to say that he was mad at us for leaving them there with a war-torn country, that's my understanding.

This is why we can't just abandon Iraq. We need to stay and be a humanitarian and rebuilding force. I know that Jack Murtha is correct when he says that Americans have become the target, and that our presence there has continued to irritate the situation. But that's exactly where our military strategy in Iraq is falling apart.

How does Hamas win so much support? Because they act like the Red Cross and the Shriners combined-- a social service organization, bringing aid to the little people. And in response, the little people love them. If we could stop raiding houses and start building them, and show the people the good side of America, we would not be as big of a target.

I confess I don't know how to do this, but for Pete's sake, I'm a Texas housewife with most of a degree in directing, I'm not a foreign policy expert. I just know what I see.

Ironically, Afghanistan is also the reason we should pull out of Iraq. We started a war there that became the red-headed stepchild of our foreign policy, and things there are disintegrating and fast. Poppy fields are once again the biggest cash crop, supplying heroin to the world. The tribal warlords are back, and the Taliban keeps trying to make an appearance. Because we are once again wiping our feet on that country, the people don't trust us. And why should they? This is the second time we've been there (if you don't lump us in with all the other Western peoples who have come and gone) and once again, we aren't doing a damn thing to really help these people in the long term.

(Oh, don't get at me for not supporting the troops. All I'm saying is that our men and women are hard at work giving the man the proverbial fish instead of teaching him how to fish himself. That's not to say they aren't trying, but they aren't helping in a lasting way.)

Why did we try to create Iraq into the modern democratic state and not Afghanistan? Why not just try to create our beacon of hope in the first place we "controlled"? Because Iraq was a modern, educated, secular country which, while being controlled by a madman and his sons, was in every other respect much like America. Afghanistan is more like the Wild West-- it's tribal, it's rural, it's uneducated (due to the combination of a lack of educational system and the killing and removal of the intellectual community during the Soviet occupation), and it's distrustful, tending to favor whomever is providing a tangible benefit right now, whether that is a warlord promising money and protection or a US soldier with a candy bar. So we "drained the swamp" (which we didn't really) and went on to invade another country which we thought we could better mold into the Western model of democracy.

We can't pull out of Iraq. Lord, I wish we could. I'm a peacenik, and I wish to hell we hadn't attacked Iraq in the first place. But to pull out now would be repeating our mistakes of the past. We left Afghanistan in 1989, and it took 12 years before that came back to bite us in the ass, but eventually it did. I don't want something similar to happen 12 years from now because we left Iraq before we had cleaned up our mess.

UPDATE: Note the date on this post, June 21, 2006. It's June of 2007 now and the death toll, just of our guys, is over 3500. I am not sure any more. I still believe in the ideas put forth here, but... You can talk about your various options for putting out a fire on the stove, but once the whole house is on fire, perhaps it's time to just shut up and get out. Go here for my latest post on this subject.

Weapons of Mass Deception

That's the title of an EXCELLENT documentary that aired just the other day on the Link TV network.

http://www.wmdthefilm.com/ film's site

http://www.linktv.org/ network's site

It was about all the Hollywood tricks used to dazzle the reporters from the "run-up to the war" until now. For example, embedding the reporters with the troops, which was genius. Put them in danger and ask them to report on the people that are keeping them alive--Stockhom Syndrome, anyone? And pumping them full of fear of chemical weapons and putting them through all kinds of quick-put-your-mask-on drills, which kept them too busy to ask any real questions about the war. It won Best Doc at the 2004 Austin Film Festival, the Durban International Festival, and the Starz Denver International Film Festival.

"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other." [from the film's site]

Schechter has just written a new book as a follow-up to the film, called "When News Lies", which is a follow-up to his 2003 "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception" which is "an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion". "'When News Lies' includes the feature-length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception)" so there's a way to get your hands on the documentary. You can also order it on the web site.

I had long suspected that the answer to, "Why weren't you asking the tough questions?" was, "We were busy making pretty graphics." Knowing what the news is going to be is gold in that industry. They had something like 7 months to make graphics, coordinate sat phones and set up shop in Iraq, and create all the computer graphics of planes, bombs, etc. When you ask what they were doing, they were getting ready for the mother of all telecasts, not questioning whether this was good for the country and holding people accountable. If they had been working on that, and we went to war anyway, they would have missed their chance to make the coverage as pretty and dazzling as the next network. CNN in particular had its own shadow to contend with-- the first Iraq war put them on the map, with rudimentary technology, and this time they felt they had to outdo themselves or risk looking like yesterday's news network. Now their ads boast they've won awards for their coverage.

The TV networks in America considered their non-stop coverage their finest hour, pointing to the use of embedded journalists and new technologies that permitted viewers to see a war up close for the first time. But different countries saw different wars. Why? [also from the film's site]

The film discusses "five wars": one that was actually being fought, the one we saw on US news networks, the one the Arab nations saw, the one Europe saw, and the one Iraqis were seeing. In South Africa, for example, the media focused on the US cluster bombs, how they worked, and their effect of blowing limbs off of children. Our networks showed the POV of the plane gleaming in the desert sun, while theirs showed the POV of the ground where the bombs were falling.

Another section talks about the public being misled, as is shown in this graphic. I wish the Daily Show was listed in this poll. Note that PBS (and they said this included NPR also) viewers (/listeners) were the least deceived. No wonder the administration is trying to kill public broadcasting.



I urge everyone to see the documentary and get the book. You will be shocked and disgusted, or you won't be because now this is what you expect from these government hijackers but now you'll have talking points.

A Short Play: George Spills the Milk

A short play: George Spills the Milk.

George, age 6, and John, age 12, are in the kitchen. Colin, age 8, is there too, and Hillary, age 10, is in the living room. Mom is outside gardening.

George: I want some milk. Let me into the fridge.

John: OK, I mean, if you really need it, go ahead. Wait, [calls out] Hillary, what do you think?

Hillary [from the other room]: 'S fine...

George opens the fridge and lifts the glass bottle of milk, which starts to teeter in his hands.

John: George, don't spill it! I don't think this is a good idea anymore. Put it back.

Colin: If you spill it, you're going to have to clean it up.

George: I'm not going to spill it!

He manages to wrestle it out of the door shelf.

George: Mission Accomplished!

John: Watch it!

And George drops the milk. The glass shatters and the milk goes everywhere.

John: I knew it! You made a huge mess!

George: You told me I could get the milk. [as Colin opens his mouth] Shut up, Colin.

Colin: I'm not saying we're not friends anymore, but I'm going home.

Colin leaves.

John: I can't believe this mess!

George: I'm cleaning it, hold on.

He gets just one paper towel and starts to dab at the floor.

John: You're going to need more paper towels than that.

George: This one is just fine.

John: It's falling apart! It's not strong enough and rubbing it on the floor is tearing it up.

George: It will be fine...

He half-heartedly dabs at the floor, not really cleaning anything.

John: You needed more paper towels.

George: I know! I know! Ok, fine...

George gets more towels and continues mopping up the floor, not really getting anything clean. Hillary enters.

Hillary: What a mess!

George: I know, I know!

John: He needed more paper towels.

Hillary: Obviously. And steadier hands.

George: You said I could get the milk! You said!

Hillary: I didn't know you were going to make a huge mess, I thought you could handle it.

John: I didn't know you would spill it either. Besides, I told you you could before I told you not to. So just remember I said not to when you talk to Mom.

Mom enters.

Mom: Talk to Mom about what? Oh, my goodness! What a mess! Who is responsible for this?

George, Hillary, and John are all talking over each other.

George: You know how you said milk was important--

John: I told him not to--

Hillary: I was in the other room--

George: --they said I could!

John: I did not!

George: Did too! You said I could!

John: I said you could before I said you couldn't!!!

Mom: Enough! I need to go back out to the garden. The question is, who is going to be in charge now? It clearly shouldn't be George.

John: Me! I told him not to get out the milk AND I told him he needed more paper towels.

Hillary: Me! I mean, it's not really anyone's fault that the milk spilled, and I don't know exactly what to do about it, but George is a pooty-head.

John: Well, duh. We all know he's a pooty-head. The important thing is that I told him not to do it and I told him he needed more paper towels.

Mom: Yes, but what about the mess?

George: I cleaned it long enough. Now it's up to the next guy.

John: Well, it's a pretty big mess. I think paper towels are needed, more than George was ever going to use...

Hillary: Well, it is a big mess, and I mean, you never can tell where the milk is going to get to. I can't exactly say what I would do, I just know it needs to get cleaned up.

John: Obviously.

And here I bring down the curtain on my little play.

The point is, I'm getting really tired of this discussion. Yes, George is a pooty-head who spilled milk everywhere. Yes, it's going to be a mess cleaning it up, and no matter how much you are in opposition to him and his mess-making, whoever gets in there next is going to have to clean it up. And they will probably clean it up in basically the same way that George would, because there's not that many ways to do it.

So just because you are in opposition to George doesn't mean that "what you're going to do in Iraq" is going to be that much different than George would do if he stayed, or what any of your opponents would do: deal with the facts on the ground and try to get us out of there in one piece without leaving behind a hotbed of terrorism (the kind we left in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out).

The salient point to sway me then, to choose the next POTUS, is that from now on you are going to be careful. That you won't get us recklessly into another war. That you will be honest with us. That you will start to deal with international terror cells in a law-enforcement paradigm and stop bashing around the world with your bombs. That you will start treating them like the cockroachy criminals that they are and stop elevating their status to warriors that we have to send our warriors to fight in a big-scale war. That the next time a POTUS tells me that we have to go to war to defend ourselves, we actually do. That we will go back to the Powell Doctrine. That we won't have this big mess again.

As for the cleaning up, well, it's going to be messy and no one is really going to have a good answer as to how to magically make the mess go away. I think we should stop expecting that they will, and focus on whether they have the quality to keep us from future messes.


[Published by me as a letter to the War Room on Salon.com. Editor's Choice!]

Gay Marriage, for the last time (I hope)

I can't believe that I'm writing another post on this stupid topic, but I've been sounding off to my two-year-old about it and he's bored of the subject. So here I am, venting on the internet.

The Senate gay marriage amendment died today! (On the day I wrote this, which thanks to our crappy Net connection was a few days ago.) So that's good news, at least. However it also means I may be beating a dead horse here. But I have one or two more swings left in me, so here goes.

Besides, I'm not the only one. Lou Dobbs came out swinging in an editorial on cnn.com. His point, tying it in to his usual hot buttons, was that gay marriage is the least of the "attacks" on the American Family. I get the feeling that he also feels strongly that gays should get to marry, though he's never come out and said so.

The president and the Senate's Republican leadership are now claiming that an amendment to our Constitution is necessary to save the American family. No matter how you feel about the issue, and many of us feel deeply, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is utter and complete nonsense. It's an insult to the intelligence of every voter, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.

The president and the Senate are focusing on one of the few reasons that has not been proven to cause divorce. They instead should look to financial hardships, and the lack of communication about family finances. The median family income is stagnating while gasoline costs and higher interest rates are eating up the family budget.

I'm sure somewhere in the article he mentioned that college tuition costs are up by 40%, since he usually rings that bell.

This is what I've been saying for years. If you really want to "protect marriage", then outlaw The Bachelor. Outlaw Las Vegas drunken quickie weddings. Outlaw divorce? No, then no one would ever get married and that would defeat the purpose. But outlaw gold diggers. Outlaw infidelity. Mandate monthly meetings with the two spouses and a CPA. (A report came out today that said the main cause of divorce is a lack of communication about finances.) Your marriage is more likely to break up because your husband ran off with his gold digger secretary after emptying your bank accounts and marrying her soused in Vegas than because he saw two men get married and thought that sounded like a good idea. If you're really concerned about marriage's virtue, then go after the big stuff first. Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite, and what you really mean is that you don't want gays and lesbians to become respectable.

And I also came across Michael Scherer's "Who's afraid of the big bad gay marriage amendment?" on Salon.com today. He was reporting on the Senate floor debate, starring Sam Brownback (R, Kansas), who showed up with a lot of charts that meant nothing to back up his theories about gay marriage, which also meant nothing. The right had, as LD said, come out with a new "theory", which was that families in this country are collapsing. I'm not sure that's more true today than in the past, but in any case, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with gay marriage, as you'll see. As Scherer said, "...the principal argument mounted by social conservative leaders like Brownback has more to do with the fragile state of heterosexual marriage than homosexuality." To avoid too long of a quote, here are some of the points made in the article. (Quotes are credited, otherwise it's Michael Scherer describing a point made by the right.)

-- "Developmental problems are less common in two parent families." Brownback

-- welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births

-- If society approves of long-term homosexual monogamy, then the "institution of marriage" will be weakened. This will lead straight people to abandon monogamy and harm the welfare of the nation's children, who benefit from stable, two-parent families.

-- "Violent crime, youth crime, welfare dependency and child poverty track more closely with family breakdown than with any other social variable, including race and income level." Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage.

-- They talked about the damage done by deadbeat dads in the inner city, and the importance of family in minority communities.

OK, so we're all thinking the same thing, and according to the article, the press was too.

The press corps who had gathered for the event appeared universally baffled by the argument being made from behind the microphones. "How would outlawing gay marriage encourage heterosexual fathers to stick around?" asked the first wire service reporter to be called on for questions.

Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it? The point everyone seems to be missing is that these families they are describing are straight families. Which isn't to say that gay families don't have problems, although gays (especially the ones who start families) tend to be more educated and more financially secure, so they're not ending up on welfare or suffer child poverty. And these problems that American Families are dealing with, as listed above, are not the result of gay people getting married. An undereducated man with no job prospects who has a juvie record isn't smacking his starving kids and leaving them with no child support because two other men got married. Scherer put it so well:

The American people are not given to amending the Constitution to punish one group of people (committed gay and lesbian couples) for the sins of another group (uncommitted straight couples).

Scherer also gave some good information from the APA:

Furthermore, the American Psychological Association has concluded that gay and lesbian parents are as likely as straight parents to provide supportive healthy environments for their children. There is no scientific evidence that children of homosexual parents are more likely to suffer abuse, psychological hardship or homosexual tendencies. Gay couples have been found to be just as happy -- and just as unhappy -- as heterosexual couples and similarly committed to long-term relationships.

So the ERR has shown its true colors, and so has the American people. First, the ERR came off sounding like idiots. All those charts and figures, and none of them had anything to do with gay marriage, as it turns out. And in this last-ditch effort to get this amendment in before the mid-term elections throws the right out of power, the ERR discovered that with every year that passes, the People are more accepting of gay marriage. Lastly, this was the worst timing when our collective prospects are in the toilet and we have all of these serious concerns-- not just legitimate attacks on the American Family, as Lou Dobbs pointed out, but two wars and one on the way, porous borders, an immigration situation, a still-weak FEMA and a looming hurricane season, and a collapsing middle class, (and, and, and...)-- which made this issue seem even more ridiculous than it has in the past.

After 9/11, the Onion ran an article, "A shattered nation longs to worry about stupid bullshit again." I think the ERR learned that even the people who don't think gays should marry still wish we could worry about something as stupid as a gay marriage amendment.

Gay Marriage Post 3 of 3
Post 1
Post 2