Now that the Bush administration’s Troop Surge is “working,” what’s next, war watchers? Permanent occupation, of course.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the odds-on Republican presidential nominee would be content to stay in Iraq 100 years or more. He was for the surge all along.
He’s a real, true, War Hawk. He’s a decorated combat hero. His father was an admiral. His father’s father was an admiral. War heroes. Sen. McCain is open about his justification for permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq and all lands connected to Iraq: to better fight against Islamic radicals, extremists.
Sen. McCain, and others who share his view always include the word “Islamic,” when describing their enemy. What about the rest of the people who fall under “Islamic?” How does a President McCain propose to differentiate between “bad” Islamic people and the rest of the Islamic people?
Among the leading Democratic contenders: Senators Hilary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), they all concede that U.S. troops will need to remain in Iraq at least 10 years! Give or take a year or two.
Does the “success” of the Surge (in at least pacifying the Iraqi countryside for a while) mean the U.S. is more likely to declare victory and come home, or remain deployed? That is a trick question.
Pres. George W. Bush has stalled the judgment on his war-policy until long after he’s left office. He gets to walk away from his failed policy which launched an illegal war of aggression virtually unscathed. The next president can still “win” or “lose” the Iraq war, and Mr. Bush, doesn’t smell anything like sulfur in the process, thank you.
And except for the possibly catastrophic economic collapse that’s just ahead for this country under Bush’s stewardship, the President would have left office with no worse than a C-minus…a passing grade.
The Surge worked in the domestic debate, where it was aimed in the first place.
Iraq’s permanent occupation is a forward outpost in the Neo Cons’ war strategy. It is a permanent front-line in the never-ending war against Islamic extremists.
Many American politicians were against the war this time last year because the U.S. was losing on the battlefield, and not because the war is morally wrong and illegal.
But the Surge strategy was to keep us talking about “the troops” and how they were doing in the field, and not talk about the wrong-headed policy.
Now that The Surge has worked, the President and his Neo-Con advisers don’t even have to present robust arguments for continuing the war front in Iraq anymore, that truth is self evident.
Remember Mr. President, Vice President, Sen. McCain: The trouble with “radical” or “extremist” Islam is not that it’s “Islamic,” but rather that it’s radical, as in: “marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional,” in other words, it’s “extreme.” Radical Islamists, tend to, or are “disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions.”
It’s not unlike the fundamentalist Christian “extremism”–former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s Creationist-Army; the Mormon zealots in Nevada who gave co-religionist Mitt Romney 80 percent of their votes in the recent primary–not unlike fundamentalist, Zionist Jews; really not unlike your typical card-carrying-Neo Conservatives.
Islam is not the problem. Islam is the solution to the problems.