Condemnation and Surge Protection

The Iowa Senate condemns Bush's troop surge in Iraq recently. Proponents of condemnation generally say this war has gone beyond its original paramenters of disabling weapons of mass destruction as no WMDs were found, and the evil dictator Saddam Hussein has been eliminated. The surge is overkill for something that has long been deemed "mission accomplished."

Dissenters claim that anti-war rhetoric is causing poor morale among the ranks in Iraq, and gives psychological ammunition to the terrorists and insurgents. Is there a study that proves that this anti-war rhetoric is the cause of troops' poor morale? If so, I think those findings need to be referenced. Otherwise, these legslators assume this is the case, and we all know what assuming does. (Makes an ASS out of U and ME.)

What is the ideal situation in Iraq? Of course, the best thing that could happen is that the Iraqis get over their deathly loathing of others, start getting along, and work together to show the USA and the world that they are solid, organized and a stable nation.

It is a nice gesture for the Iowa Senate to think clearly about this war and send a message condemning Bush's troop surge in Iraq. However, this message falls short of the need to change the way we think about this war in Iraq.

That won't happen until we in the USA stop thinking that "we" need to win this war. I don't know how many times I need to stress this before it sticks with an intelligent someone in the media, but this elusive victory is not our (USA's) victory. STOP saying that we must win this Iraq war. This victory in Iraq is for Iraq (unless there's a very hidden agenda to take over this country that I don't know about). We all need to stop thinking about a USA victory in Iraq and start considering this as Iraq's victory. Until this happens, there is no way troops will leave and there will be no end to this war.

The Republicans have put their spin on this war to unofficially declare it as imperative US dominance in Iraq, and now pointing fingers at Iran, all in pursuit of this "war on terror." Deflectors of this disjointed pursuit of the war on terror are deemed as undermining these efforts. But, what are these efforts? Our goal might be to eliminate terrorists, but what are we really doing? Our "war on terror" seems to be creating more terrorists as we invade countries on false precepts, completely destroy their infrastructure, and leave these regions void of any sense of civilation. Inhabitants or "insurgents" are fighting because their lives have been turned upside down and they have seen the destruction and murders. They feel this is the only way to regain their country again.

Those who think these actions are inhuman and wrong need to create a counterspin to the "war on terror" and change the way our country's citizens and look at this war. Working around and challenging the Republican spin only helps to promote this Republican "war on terror" spin. Creating and promoting a completely different counterspin that Americans can embrace will help change the course of international relations and turn the tide on senseless conflicts.

Sure, we can plead to stop the troop surge, and we can ask to send the troops home, but this is weak strategy. When Keith Olbermann reminds us how many days we have been at war since proclaiming "mission accomplished" we should not just listen and agree, but we need to counterspin that message to the country. Our mission apparently was accomplished, so why are we still there?