Thursday, June 15, 2006

"Strategically Nebulous and Morally Obtuse"

"A dumb idea"

"When the country is war-weary, when the violence is still playing out on TV, I don't know why we want to highlight all that"

"This is nothing more or less than really a charade"

These are a sample of statements by Republican members of Congress regarding the upcoming "debate" on the Iraq war Resolution sponsored by the U.S. House of People's Deputies.

...the resolution itself--declaring that the United States will complete the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq and will prevail in the global war on terror--has attracted strong criticism from lawmakers in both parties. Democrats and antiwar Republicans object to the linkage between the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, while some Republicans have said it sets unrealistic goals.


...GOP leaders are trying to make sure today's debate is on Republican terms. The resolution, "declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror [and] the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary," was introduced with unabashed partisan overtones. The rules of debate will not allow the resolution to be amended, nor will alternative resolutions be allowed on the floor for a vote.

Even with the restrictions imposed on the "debate" for this "resolution", I doubt the "debate" will go according to plan.

The killing (finally) of Zarqawi was indeed a step in the right direction for Iraq's stability and sovereignty, but Bush and his entourage, unknowingly or not, undermined the latter by jetting into Baghdad uninvited by and without the knowledge of, Iraq's new "sovereign" government, a point that a member of the press actually did raise in yesterday's press conference even though Bush dodged the part of the question that contrasted the Iraq government's supposed "sovereign" status with Bush's, how can we put it another way, invasionary five hour tour.

What will the U.S.'s relationship be to an eventual "free", "secure", and "sovereign" Iraq? Will U.S. officials continue to expect or enjoy unfettered access to the country? Will U.S. officials be granted "amnesty" to "invade" the country whenever they want?

And what about American military bases? Will the Iraqi government have a choice about whether permanent bases are established in Iraq?

These are among the many questions House members of good will can raise during this "debate".

No comments: