The 'war' was officially 'won' by the end of April, 2002.
The occupation though has been a 'loser' by most any statistical measure one would care to use:
(Steadily rising US death and casualty rates, rising costs, declining oil production in Iraq, rising numbers of attacks by insurgents, 50% plus unemployment rate among Iraqis, decreased GNP in Iraq, increase in terrorism attacks, increase in civilian Iraqi deaths, decline in health indices, increase in child death rates, decline in electricity production... you name it. While all of these measures have flucuated, the over-all trend has been downward.)
We are only harming our own interests by maintaining the occupation any longer.
PS --- Do you remember all the times Bush II said on TV that we would 'only stay as long as the Iraqis wanted us to', and that 'as soon as they ask us to leave we will....'?
Well, in the news reports today --- in the same news cycle as this item stating that the Iraqis are calling for a foreign troop pullout:
Message 21908736
I noticed that the White House was quoted as saying that 'we are there in Iraq to implement a UN mandate' (forgetting, no doubt, that the UN never authorized us to do that....), and 'we will leave when asked to by the UN'.
That statement (unlike the previous ones where we said we would be there only as long as Iraq wanted us to be) IMPLIES that the UN must GIVE PERMISSION before we will pull out.
Did anyone fail to notice that THE US IS A MEMBER OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND HAS A VETO POWER THERE?
Just as only the UN Security Council can authorize and sanction a UN-approved military intervention --- the US, with it's veto power there, could PREVENT the UN from EVER formally requesting that US troops leave.
Strange, ain't it! |
