It happened: “The measure asking all foreign troops to leave . . . passed.”
We are talking about Iraq . . . and the U.S. military.
So, not much else has happened.
After that parliamentary vote, Ron Paul explains, “when the Iraqi prime minister called up Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to request a timetable for a US withdrawal, Pompeo laughed in his face.”
I am with Dr. Paul on this one. The U.S. should take this opportunity to get out . . . “before more US troops die for nothing in Iraq.”
But is it for nothing?
Once upon a time, Americans were afraid of military “quagmires.” Now somehow we’ve come to accept permanent quagmire status in multiple theaters.
Could it be that when President George Herbert Walker Bush said, following the First Persian Gulf War, that “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all,” he was speaking of its psy-op effect on the American electorate?
Pushing us into World War I, President Wilson claimed to be “making the world safe for democracy.” Perhaps Papa Bush made America safe for never-ending “regime-change wars.”
Before becoming vice president and then president, and going on to claim victory over “Vietnam Syndrome,” Bush headed the Central Intelligence Agency, the original regime modification professionals. And certainly endless, pointless foreign warfare has been the health of . . . the Deep State.
“The pressure for the U.S. to leave Iraq has been building within the country,” argues former Rep. Paul, “but the U.S. government and mainstream media is completely — and dangerously — ignoring this sentiment.”
Put American soldiers — not some secret or not-so-secret Deep State agenda — first. Bring them home.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “America Safe for Quagmires?”
Armed intervention cannot solve the problems of the Middle East any more than it could the “Troubles” of Ireland,
No one would bother or get near the region were it not for the fact that the area’s oil reserves make it a strategic flashpoint because continued production supports so much of the world’s productivity
.
I agree that the time to get out given that we have been “invited” to leave, which presents an opportunity which the US should avail itself of.
Additionally, we should not delay simply because another power will swiftly move to fill the vacuum a US departure leaves which is why State and the CIA balk at the thought. Those who are not blessed with energy independence have a much greater interest than we at this moment and will move in. It will be in short order, and I suspect that the residents and present governments in the area will shortly determine that the US might well have been the least of the evils that they will have to deal with.
The Europeans have a greater need for Iraqi oil than we do. They also have the means to protect their own sovereignty. Let them do their ‘fair share’.
However, I would not restrict our exodus to the military. Our diplomats should leave as well. Iraqi forces charged with protecting our embassy stood down when confronted by militias. Our citizens are not safe in Iraq. Everyone should leave. We can’t help people who don’t want our help. We did our best, but it’s over. A deaf ear should be turned to any pleas for our return. People who want their sovereignty respected need to defend it themselves.
It is pointless for any nation to enter a war without the intent of striving all-out to achieve victory. Yet, that is precisely what the United States has done since WWII. The rest of the world now knows that it isn’t necessary to defeat the United States in actual conflict, it’s only required to hold out long enough for Americans to tire of wasting men and materiel and start whining, “It’s time to bring the boys home.” The adversary is then free to complete his goals.
Perhaps, I should have paid more attention to the stalemate we wound up with in Korea, but in my naivety I thought surely that was a “one-off”, and couldn’t happen again. Then later, I found myself in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam and my president was talking about “sending messages” to the enemy. And it wasn’t just any enemy but one that had been striving for victory for decades. They weren’t interested in messages, and they weren’t playing “silly buggers”; they were only interested in killing me!
Eventually, and certainly predictably, our nation become tired of the “loong” war and, goaded by the media, concluded one more “Peace in our Time” style treaty with the enemy. The Communists only waited until American politicians grew complacent, trashed the treaty, and devoured the South quite easily.
So there, I thought, maybe next time. Then, lo and behold, next time came. Twenty-five years later I’m in the desert watching the most one-sided devastating “beat-down” of the century. Then, 100-hours into the walk-over, it was decided “Oh well, Saddam has learned his lesson, let’s quit.”
But alas, Saddam didn’t learn any lesson. After butchering the Marsh Arabs he resumed his belligerent ways. Over time we were forced to go back again. When I say “we”, I mean my eldest daughter (her second war). By this time I was too old and decrepit for personal participation. But when I saw the statues coming down I mistakenly thought, “We finally got one right.”
Wrong again! We couldn’t manage to live with victory. Instead we helped create and fund a terrorist enterprise that butchered tens of thousands in the most possible gruesome ways. And we’re still there.
Undeterred, we then sent forces into the “Grave of Empires” (my eldest son’s second war) with the innocent belief that millennia of history could be ignored. Now, more than a decade later, we’re trying to extricate ourselves by negotiating our way out with people whose very religion tells them that lying to us is perfectly acceptable. What could go wrong?