Five Years in Iraq -- What's the Problem?

We know the numbers -- 1 trillion dollars, 5 years, 775 detainees in Guantanamo, 935 false statements made by the administration, about 4,000 dead Americans, 30-50,000 wounded soldiers, over 100,000 soldiers with treated and untreated PTSD, almost a million dead Iraqis, 2 million internally displaced Iraqis and up to 3 million Iraqi refugees who have left the country.

But apparently this is not a problem, as the political elite in this country do not serve, and the cannon fodder producing communities across the country do not count.

We do know that no party leadership, Democrat or Republican cares a whit about the Iraq occupation, whether it is the fifth anniversary, or the hundredth -- except as it can be used to mobilize a vote or two.

We know that the kingmakers in America -- the New York Times and the Washington Post, and the major television stations -- all support the continuation of the Iraq occupation, indefinitely. Attacks on Iran? Well, it seems they will probably support that as well. The Iraq fifth anniversary features in both papers were carefully posed to be generally supportive of the actions taken by Bush and Cheney -- while "honestly" considering the faults and flaw of execution. To look at the glass half full -- well, we have all those nice bases overseas, and think of the oil and democracies we are "protecting."

And we wouldn't want Israel to feel all alone -- isn't that a good reason for an otherwise immoral and rapacious occupation of Iraq? Plus -- what are you going to do -- bring the troops all home?

Actually, yes. That is exactly what we are going to do -- just like in 1975, and just like the Soviets out of Afghanistan in 1989. Our unemployable, ill-tempered, chemical and drug-addicted, betrayed troops will indeed come home. They will be want to talk about their experiences -- but no one at their kitchen table will understand, or even want to listen. Their nightmares and pain-filled memories mirror our stupid and well-deserved guilt. Just like five years ago and today, ten years from now we still won't be ready to talk about why the will of the American people (don't 70+ percent oppose the occupation) was inconsequential, and why we ignored our constitutional requirement for Congressional action pro or con on Iraq before 4,000 of our soldiers died there for no reason whatsoever.

OK -- you've been waiting. There is a reason for five and ten and twenty years and even a hundred in Iraq. Arms sales, security services sales, occupation related business, and the inevitable nature of bureaucracies to grow no matter what -- whether it be the State Department consoled by an administration that hates them with a monstrous Baghdad palace of symbolic American "influence," or a beloved Pentagon and intelligence apparatus that has never seen such fat budget years, with such minimal justification, gaining such a net negative in American security. It's all good for State Department and Pentagon business and budgets. War works.

When mainstream media complains about the war -- they do so carefully, because too many people in this country benefit in one way or another from the American warfare-welfare state. To do the right thing at the national level will cost the government -- Republicans and Democrats -- credibility (Why did we go? Why didn't we come home sooner?) and budget justification (no war on terror through occupation and aggression, no need for DHS, or a half trillion a year Pentagon budget). To do the right thing will cost -- in the short term -- actual jobs in districts who get tax dollars for products relating to maintenance and expansion of our global military empire.

Until we recognize what we have become as a nation -- and look our weaknesses and dependencies in the face -- we cannot afford to care about 4,000 soldiers, or 40,000. They died and are dying to make us feel good, to sustain an illusion of national productivity, to nurture our fantasy of national moral superiority.

And unlike the Jesus we remember this Easter, overcoming death to raise our own moral standards and free us from unproductive and selfish lives -- the dead Americans and Iraqis are going to stay dead as permanent testaments to our lack of ethics, our economic barrenness, and our supreme selfishness. One thing is for sure -- and maybe the mainstream media actually got it right. You can't blame Bush and Cheney, five years later.

Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq

Comments

[countrycontemplative]

You are right on the money. I can't go over how well you've written this. Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan are the high watermarks of the American empire. There will be now 10, 15 or more years in Iraq because the USA is on the verge of bankruptcy. We don't have the tax base nor the resources to continue this hemorrhage of money, men, women and material. None of the three candidates running for election dare buck the military industrial complex. None of the three will end the occupation voluntarily, but what will happen is that the government will run out of resources. I just cannot imagine who else would finance this debacle absent public funds.

[dajson]

We don't need to accomplish Impeachment against Bush and Cheney since that would have only been the beginning of their trials anyway. It is still not too late to bring up formal charges of treason against members of this administration to follow them into prison following the end of this criminal administration.

[huffhuffpass]

Most married couples can agree that they love their in-laws and don't mind short visits from them, however it is a good day when they leave.

[Henry]

I have read that our christian leader, George Son-of-George has told others "we're kicking ass now!". So it really shouldn't last long before the armistice. (life is a baseball game)

[MitchW]

"Our unemployable, ill-tempered, chemical and drug-addicted, betrayed troops will indeed come home. "
Have you even met ONE of these troops? I dont give a shit about what your politics are - this description of those in service was over the top and uncalled for- you want to bitch about BushCo fine go right ahead - but those with loved ones/friends in service...Dem or Rep... I'm sure resent that characterization.

[JimR]

I don't think it was meant to disparage any of our troops. They are brave men and women who have sacrificed a great deal to fight for our nation.

And yet this Administration treats them like dog crap. How do they repay their service?

Mandatory 18-month redeployments. Cutting veterans benefits. Veterans hospitals in deplorable condition.

You want to get angry, knock yourself out. But how about directing some of that anger toward BushCo, who don't have the will or the courage to do right by our troops?

[MitchW]

Direct anger at BushCo? Hello? They've got about 8 months left so who gives a F*...thats politics..go ahead and beat that dead horse/duck/monkey whatever. I wont engage in it.
The servicemen and women dont get a say in what they do - and to cast disparaging remarks about they're service is uncalled for. And yes...read it again they were disgusting remarks and they were directed at our servicepeople.
The Democratic party is about to assume the reigns of leadership - most likely the Presidency, House and Senate. That means on "day one" the democratic president now becomes Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Its time to take people like this woman to task to make sure that stupid remarks like the one she made are pointed out and corrected BY DEMOCRATS.

[cognate]

Ron Paul speaks the truth. Karen too.

[sd4peace]

Once the Democratic Leadership took impeachment off the table, I knew that they would not affect real change regarding Iraq.

I believe that Reid and Pelosi have sold us out on this issue, and need to be held accountable.

[Sundialsvc4]

Time for some reading, by a General of the Army (FIVE stars...) who subsequently became Commander in Chief. The day was January 21, 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex

Let's talk dollars here, while we still have them. This "business" thrives on a bloodstream of about $96,000 per SECOND, all of it manufactured literally right out of thin air by this fiction called "the full faith and credit of the United States."

Let's talk the point of view of someone who could ignite World War III in order to, from a bandstand seat of perfect safety, toast his marshmallows by the nuclear fires.

Let's let a single word speak for itself: "So?"

"Government," of a nation of more than 320 million people, is not about the care and feeding of the plutocrat 1,000 who gerrymander their way to the top posts and stay there until Father Time takes their souls. It really ISN'T about "what can you do for your country," it really IS "what can your country do for you," but that "what it can do" is NOT "to provide 'the dole.'"

So we have the absurd position that the world's greatest consumer nation that used to be the world's greatest producer is now impoverished ... and it all happened in less than 50 years, as some of us are quite able to recall from having been there the entire time. "Ike" Eisenhower's prophecies proved to be terribly accurate (including the observation that what the military industrialists were producing was, by and large, militarily useless). So what, exactly, are We the 320 Million going to do about this Less Than A Thousand?

Let's start by getting about 270 people so scared of, say, the lynch-mob outside (I am speaking metaphorically) that they "run, don't walk" into the House chambers to cast a vote for a few dozen Articles of Impeachment. Next, we need exactly 76 other men and women to run the bills, ink still wet, to their own Chambers to also say "Aye!" And at that moment, ladies and gentlemen, with several dozen key crime-lords knocked from their posts, we will live on a different PLANET.

[rmreddicks]

What's to frighten the 270 or so enough that they will respond to other than their corporate lobbyists, corporate contributors and easily lied to (begging for lies?) constituencies? Other than that I agree (though I might quibble metaphorically).

[globalwarmingisgreat]

Karen, I have a suggestion. Why don't you give that friend of yours, the Speaker of the House, a call and ask her to stop funding the war?

[LizM]

Unfortunately, the Speaker has no power whatsoever to end the war, even if funding was stopped. That power rests solely, all things considered, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And, to put it another way, stopping the funding will not end the civil war in Iraq or get US troops out - that is not a serious tactic at all.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"You can't blame Bush and Cheney, five years later."

Oh yes, I surely can!

[cindyw]

Cheney spent the fifth anniversary fishing on the Sultan of Oman's royal yacht. They don't even pretend to care anymore.

[markkraft]

"We do know that no party leadership, Democrat or Republican cares a whit about the Iraq occupation..." And your proof for this is to link to a Christian Libertarian weblog?! As if Christian Libertarianism would somehow set us free like it has freed all of those followers of your favorite candidate, Ron Paul?!

Sure, it's easy to say that nobody in either party cares about the soldiers in Iraq... but this is just our frustration talking. The fact is, it simply is not true... that numerous Democrats have taken a stand against the war in Iraq from the start, and that even your beloved Ron Paul voted to authorize funding for the war in Iraq, as of 9/7/2006, only changing course shortly before election season?

The simple fact is, Barack Obama -- and other Democrats -- have made a principled stand against the war in Iraq. To ignore this fact or somehow suggest that supporting defense appropriation bills while our soldiers are deployed in the field is a sign of approval for an indefinite continuation of the conflict... is nuts.

You're arguing for symbolism, not change, because change requires a sweeping national movement that comes from the bottom up. And ultimately, that is something your candidate Ron Paul wasn't capable of.

So, don't come to us Democrats now and suggest that we should buy into your failed, half-baked ideology, because our vision of concern for our fellow Americans requires us to say no to all the societal injustices that would be prevalent in your vision of a libertarian state, where "freedom" also means the freedom for unlimited corporate greed and exploitation, and the freedom for our elderly to die in the streets.

You argue for freedom as a self-destructive act of anarchy, creating a power vaccuum where those with the most power would brutally dominate. Thank you... but no thanks. If you want *REAL* change, and you want government that respects the rights of the individual enough to put real teeth behind those rights, I suggest you get on our bus instead.

[markkraft]

"We do know that no party leadership, Democrat or Republican cares a whit about the Iraq occupation..."

And your proof for this is to link to a Christian Libertarian weblog... and not even to a specific post on that weblog?! As if Christian Libertarianism would somehow set us free like it has freed all of those followers of your favorite candidate, Ron Paul?!

Sure, it's easy to say that nobody in either party cares about the soldiers in Iraq... but this is just our frustration talking. The fact is, it simply is not true... that numerous Democrats have taken a stand against the war in Iraq from the start, and that even your beloved Ron Paul voted to authorize funding for the war in Iraq, as of 9/7/2006, only changing course to defund the war before the election.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/votes/page14/

The simple fact is, Barack Obama -- and other Democrats -- have made a principled stand against the war in Iraq. To ignore this fact or somehow suggest that supporting defense appropriation bills while our soldiers are deployed in the field -- as both Barack Obama *AND* Ron Paul have done -- is a sign of approval for an indefinite continuation of the conflict... is nuts.

You're arguing for symbolism, not change... because change requires a sweeping national movement that comes from the bottom up. And that, ultimately, is something that your candidate Ron Paul wasn't capable of.

So, don't come to us Democrats now and suggest that we should buy into your failed, half-baked ideology, because our concern for our fellow Americans absolutely guarantees that we will not and would not accept all the societal injustices that would be prevalent in your vision of a libertarian state, where your vision of "freedom" also means the freedom for unlimited corporate greed, exploitation, and polution, and the freedom for the elderly to die in the streets.

You argue for change as symbolism, and for freedom as a self-destructive act of anarchy, creating a power vaccuum where those with the most power would brutally dominate.

So thank you... but no thanks.

If you want *REAL* change, and you want government that respects the rights of the individual enough to put real teeth behind those rights, I suggest you get on our bus instead.

[Choc1972]

It will be an ugly day for America and her citizens when these particular chickens come home to roost. God Bless us all.

[Choc1972]

Bravo!!! Well said. END THIS WAR!!!!!!