A while ago, Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) was showing some signs of lucidity by recognizing that George W. Bush's “surge” is a recipe for continued disaster. In February I praised Upton when he said: [Bush's] surge strategy will fail and only prolong the day that the Iraqis will finally pick up the baton and lead their own government.
He continued in his Congressional floor speech:
Let's face it, this is a civil war, it is real anarchy. And, in fact, the Iraqis don't want us there. Nearly 80 percent of them in Baghdad say that American troops provoke more violence than they prevent. And those same polls show that Iraqis overwhelmingly want U.S. troops gone within a year. In fact, we know that a majority of both sides, Shia and Sunni, believe that it's okay to kill our troops.
So imagine my surprise when Mr. Upton inexplicably voted against the latest war funding bill last week and cited the provision to reduce troop numbers as the source of his discontent. Most recently, Upton said:
"Setting goals for success is one thing, setting a date in stone for withdrawal is another. I firmly believe that such a date not only puts our troops in grave danger, it also allows the insurgents to plot their strategy."
What would you be in favor of? The Iraqis have missed every goal set for success, every single benchmark over the past four years. Their soldiers are not trained, their government is not stable, their streets are not safe, their neighbors are not supportive, their police force is corrupt. In short, there are no signs that the US presence has done anything but add to the chaos.
Mr. Upton, if this is “real anarchy”, and if the Iraqis “overwhelmingly” want us out, and if you agree that “American troops provoke more violence”, then why would you oppose a redeployment of our men and women out of that hell-hole?
If you don't agree with a troop increase and you don't agree with a troop decrease, then what do you agree to?
Stay the course?
Go back to sleep, Fred, you're embarrassing yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment