Should the US pull out its troops regardless of whether Iraq is ready to defend its people?

30 September, 2007

Citizens of the United States of America,

Why would you want to leave Iraq? Were you not positively adamant to get in to start with? What with their involvement with 9/11, or was it weapons of mass destruction, sorry that should read Al Qaeda, hang on regime change I believe it finally was. The rest of the world smelled a rat from the onset (The total number of protesters worldwide ranges wildly from eight to thirty million. Turnouts tended to be highest in countries where governments supported the Bush administration Italy, Britain, Spain, and the US all had massive protests), but the people of the United States needed to be patriotic, one with our boys and with us, not against us.

So there you are. To stay, you understand. For after the regime change, in which you replaced an unrepresentative murderer with another unrepresentative chump of an as-yet unknown record (and shame on you for objecting that this whiter-than-white prime minister of Iraq was chosen democratically, when the people there had to risk their lives to make it to the voting booths), you built your largest embassy right in their capital.

It will consist of 21 buildings across 104 acres and provide space to 1000 regular employees and up to 3000 additional staff. Built, unsurprisingly, by a controversial subcontractor of Halliburton, this is not an investment you make when you are about to leave. The United States erect their biggest embassy when they intend to stay.

After over 3,800 US casualties (as of 27 September 2007) – more, incidentally, than the number of casualties after that disgraceful assault on the skyscrapers of the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001 – and more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens murdered since the invasion took place in 2003, [5] one objective has been reached beyond any doubt: the establishment of complete dependence of Iraqi society on US intervention when it comes to imposing a modicum of order.

The instrument used by the United States to achieve that order is the same as the one that keeps Iraq’s oil reserves under control, or the one that infiltrates neighbouring Syria and Iran. The latter goals are not publicly discussed by your administration, nor by extension, your mass media. You are, we are told and you believe, in Iraq because they need you.

And hence you provide your proud sons and daughters as cannon fodder to this doomsday machine that is being run for the benefit of your wealthy few. All the while, you parrot the ideological dogmas of a political and economic system that fuels your country’s addiction to foreign intervention.

By now, there is no excuse for your ignorance in the matter. The proof is there for all to see; you are spreading death and misery in numerous countries in the Middle East and Latin America, all the while proclaiming to be banner holders for freedom and democracy.

Given the real objectives of US military presence in Iraq, it is self-evident the US administration wants to stay. The suffering of the people there plays no role in your cost calculations when it comes to controlling the region and dominating the global energy power play. The United States answer in this cynical debate is a resounding No.

The Iraqis, though, deserve an uncompromising Yes.


2 Responses to “Should the US pull out its troops regardless of whether Iraq is ready to defend its people?”

  1. ambre Says:

    Are you for or against aiding your fellow man when they are unable to help themselves? What is your take on all the mass graves filled with the corpses of innocent lives, that were slaughtered due to non-allegiance or just because they were deem less valuable to society. Saddam was a dictator who ruled with an iron fist.

    what’s your thoughts on this?


  2. mbotta Says:

    Hi Amber,

    Thanks for your comments :)

    When you ask if I am for or against aiding my fellow man unable to help himself, that question answers itself: and by helping I mean understand the needs, talents and opportunities of that fellow man and then assess the best way to help him overcome his hardships and let him stand on his own two feet again. May I ask you in turn what is the relevance of your question to the US invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq?

    As far as the mass graves are concerned, my take is one of abhorrence. The way Saddam treated his citizens was criminal, sick, tragic and despicable. This treatment was strongly facilitated by the US, France, Britain and the Soviet Union. Without their help, he would not have been able to pull it off (Didn’t Bush say something to the extent that countries supporting terrorists shall be considered terrorists themselves?) I am sure you were not referring to this kind of help in your introductory question.

    The US never went there to help the Iraqis get rid of Saddam. Rather, they helped him stay in power after they had driven Iraq out of Kuwait. In fact, when asked at the time why the US didn’t proceed to remove Saddam, Dick Cheney – then US Secretary of Defense – answered “If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Husein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundementalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?”

    Interesting how that perspective had changed by 2003.

    So, in short: when you help someone, you really help that person. The mass graves are a horrible aberration in which we played a decisive, tremendous role; something the Iraqis are well aware of. As well as of the 500,000 Iraqi children up to the age of five that died as a result of the UN sanctions we imposed – also not something we can dismiss as Saddam’s work.

    Smile back, as always



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: