Rumsfeld is sooo right. He says that our enemies take comfort in hearing that there is a strong and growing opposition to our continued presence in Iraq. That's undoubtedly true. So what?
In a democracy when we go to war or engage in police actions, the cause has to be so compelling that the people that are actually taking the hits (for you neocon children that means dying and coming home wounded, or sacrificing physical comforts, family time and income,) feel that the sacrifice is warranted. If they do not then the pressure will build for an end to the perceived waste of money and lives.
Rumsfeld knows this full well. He was a central figure in the war for the hearts and minds of the American public. He was right out front with the imminent threat, the "link to terror" and the "protect the world and our children" rhetoric. He's now right there with the "fight them over there instead of over here" and "central to the fight against terror" rhetoric that is going largely unquestioned. The tax "CUT" that made us all think that we were getting money back at a time when we were really racking up a huge debt for a war in Iraq, was another tool to use for the pacification of the American public.
Now things are coming apart and Rumsfeld knows full well that he MUST counter the growing discontent over the war with Iraq. If the people who are actually PAYING the price become unwilling to do so, then the game is over. That's why, like a petulant child, he comes back to his old saw that while debate is good, strong opposition encourages our enemies.
The problem is that our enemies aren't stupid. They already KNOW that if they kill our children, block our ability to utilize the Iraqi oil resources, and run up the cost of reconstruction by destroying more infrastructure and warning off other nations that might help, America will grow less likely to continue in Iraq. THAT'S A GIVEN.
The job of the pro-occupation, "generational endeavor" group is not to tell us that those that take the counter position should mute their criticism in order to discourage enemies that already KNOW that their actions are effective. Their job is to give us powerful, sensible and believable reasons to conclude that THE EFFORT IS WORTH THE LOSS AND THAT IT IS DOABLE. If they can do that then our enemies will understand that we're committed. If they cannot then our enemies will understand that we will eventually leave BECAUSE IT'S THE RATIONAL THING TO DO WHEN THE COSTS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS.
We've been given reasons to support the invasion and occupation that have, on their face, justified our actions. We went to war based on those reasons because most of us accepted them, but the reality is now slapping those reasons into the dust bin of history.
IF Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and the rest want the support of the American people, they'll now have to earn it with the truth and that "truth" will have to provide compelling reasons for us to spend the lives of our young men and women, and a huge amount of our wealth, in support of a nation of people that seem willing to stand by and watch our losses without lifting a finger to help us.
I don't think they can do it, even by telling us that NOW Iraq is in such a mess that we HAVE to fix it. This entire mess was ill conceived. In life you get what you pay for. The huge majority of Iraqis haven't volunteered their lives, their fortunes or their future in the struggle for "freedom and democracy." They haven't chosen the path we've laid out for them. We should bring in the U.N., give up our plans to establish an American stronghold perched on Mideastern oil and we should get out. The Iraqis should be left to find their own path to wherever it is that they're going, and that path should not be paved with our blood and our money. |
