The Dog’s Bollocks

Truth is like a dog’s bollocks – pretty obvious if you care to look.

Iraq – an ‘honourable’ retreat

Iraq has been the main story of the week. We’ve been subjected to a barrage of contradictory and incomprehensible spin from Howard and Downer about when a troop reduction is an exit strategy because the job is done, or cutting and running and handing victory to the terrorists, about staying until the job is done without defining just what that job is and what performance outcomes might demonstrate that the job is actually done. Anything but admit the simple truth that we will stay while Bush stays, or it becomes an untenable electoral liability.

There is nothing new in this, of course – we would expect nothing less from the Howard government. Yet our collective media (blogs excepted) evaluate all this at face value – as if the Iraq war was still winnable with the right policy settings. The US Army would like double the existing forces if they are expected to continue an open-ended occupation. Instead of debating the to and fro of which strategies might win the war or stabilise Iraq, how about questioning the very feasibility or desirability of an on-going occupation?

The reality is that Iraq is not under control of either the Provisional Government or the Coalition of the Willing occupying forces. Power rests with the religious and ethnic factions and their militia, aided and abetted by Iran and Al Qaeda who are both keen to inflict even more damage on the US and its international reputation. All the occupying forces are doing is struggling to survive and protracting the devastation until their inevitable retreat, without honour, in defeat. The British withdrawal is not because the job is done and the area is secure. They have lost control and are leaving, if for no other reason than to preserve what’s left of the British Labor Party’s tattered reputation, and to minimise the further sacrifice of British soldiers.

The only sane solution is for the Coalition of the Willing to withdraw, preferably mediated through UN and European negotiation with the key players. That would be a relatively ‘honourable’ retreat, given the monumental cock-up they’ve created, but my guess is it won’t happen while Howard and Bush are primarily concerned with covering their own arses until the next election, and while Halliburton and US Military Corporations can continue to fleece the American taxpayers. While they can scare the voters with the albeit real but self-inflicted threat of terrorism, and surreptitiously, through legislative corrosion, destroy our hard-earned and fought for democratic fabric of freedom, equality before the law, and justice.

Filed under: Politics

2 Responses

  1. kayinmaine says:

    I find it very telling that Bush is calling the Brit’s withdrawl as a ‘win’, but when liberals like myself say we want US troops out of there, he and his Cabal say we’re emboldening the enemy! What the heck…

  2. It’s all spin. The U.S. could “declare” victory by removing Saddam from power and handing authority over to the Iraqis. The Democrats should use that terminology when they state they want to bring the troops home.

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 )

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

The Dog’s Bollocks

What they say

The Dog's Bollocks: "Bollocks" is one of my favourite words, and this is now one of my favourite blogs and I've only been reading it for five minutes. – John Surname

This is the person who tried to analyse Hayek. This is actually a person who needs a shrink. – JC

Shut up slim. You’re an idiot.
Just you stay honest and keep that thinking cap on. – GMB

Insightful perspectives on politics and discussion of matters epistemological? I’m sold! - Bruce

Add to Technorati Favorites

Flickr Photos

%d bloggers like this: