Skip to main content.

Friday, March 30, 2007

By John Chau, Courier Managing Editor.


U.S. Army soldiers and an Iraqi National Police officer
patrol a market in Ghazaliya, Iraq, last Friday.

DoD photo by Sgt. Tierney Nowland, U.S. Army.
On Wednesday, Democrats in Congress stated that in order for President Bush to receive needed funding for the Iraqi conflict, he must accept the majority opposition’s proposed timetable for troop extraction. With $122 billion of funding in question, the president nonetheless holds firm to resist the Democrats’ withdrawal schedule, claiming in a White House excerpt that if troops went unfunded in Iraq, the American people would hold them responsible. The president also claimed that he will not negotiate with Congress, and will veto all withdrawal-related funding bills.

Why, may you ask, would beloved Dubya bite the hands of the policymakers that are offering him an end to this Iraqi war? Until recently, Bush’s approval rating in the nation has been in its abyss. In addition to the drastic drops in consumer confidence, a steady rash of protests and demonstrations have appeared across the nation, the displays showing even in localized, suburban high schools such as James Logan High School.

Amongst all this, the Patriot Act and the modified Posse Commitus Act slowly leech away the civil liberties and privacies once guarantied to all in the Land of the Free, inspiring fear and mistrust in all levels and facets of life.


Dozens of James Logan students recently protested the war.
Courier Photo
On the ‘magically’ faraway Guantanemo Bay and the equally remote Iraqi prisons, the hysteric hunt for terrorists has led to numerous atrocities. Just a year ago, journalists onboard have revealed to the American public the tortures and humiliating treatment U.S. soldiers and Corporate sector officials inflict upon countless civilians, ranging from rape to physical torture. Innocent and guilty alike were denied their dignity and liberties, and our ever-righteous judicial branch has even stripped suspects of their right to appeal their imprisonment outside of a state-declared court.

Even in the eyes of our servicemen, Bush’s insistence to continue the war is both unwelcome and full of losses. Everyday these soldiers remain in Iraqi meant more comrades and volunteers falling to car bombs, terrorist skirmishes, and malicious mistreatment: Walter Weed, with its neglected, languishing veterans; Halliburton, cheating America of billions in graft while providing woefully substandard service- who knows if there are more of such atrocities spawning from a certain leader’s desire to get more oil for his father’s coffers?

In the years since 9/11, scholars had analyzed, and provided strong evidence to the credibility of the ‘terrorist’ attack. All conspiracy talk aside, America is of late losing many of its coalition allies and in the process, greatly damaging deep-seated alliances our past leaders have spent so much effort on building: we are losing our standing among the nations at such a rate, that our reputation, economy, and credit are in rapid decline.

The trust Americans once placed to their president is no more. Indeed, many citizens once loyal to Bush’s war policies are now questioning the validity of his actions. In the Vietnam conflict at least, Nixon had been able to bring to an end troop deployment and social unrest- and he today bears still the shame of both Watergate and abandoning the Vietnamese to the Communists. Bush’s situation is unique in that much of Iraq’s unrest is caused by U.S. presence that it no longer requires. In addition to a growing democracy, the nation itself will soon possess a functional police force and the ability to restore its municipal services, achievements even hundreds of thousands of foreign troops could not solve. Furthermore, the U.S. needs to respect Iraq’s standing as a nation, meaning the right to exist independently, without occupation or military presence. It is time for the Iraqis to take control of its social situation, without the U.S. military’s constant presence and surveillance. It is time for the president to withdrawal his army, and takes an assisting, cooperative role in the nation’s reconstruction. With Iraq in civil war, it is clear that it is futile for the world police to continue its intervention effort in the nation. It is time for the Shi’ites and the Sunnis to learn that their strife is breaking down their nation, and that they must pursuit peace for the good of their homeland. It is time for us to come home, and repair the rifts and problems within our borders, as well.

Truth. Freedom. Knowledge.

Comments

look, i have taken an anti-war stance for a long time and i still do. but setting a time table/withdrawal date is just unseemly. we bomb the crap out of them and trigger a civil war and we just get up and leave? This is probably one of the very very few things I agree with President Bush.

Posted by chocolate cake and grap fruit juice at Friday, March 30, 2007 09:49:54

True, but we are not setting a date; rather, we are staging an organized withdrawal, and relegating to an assisting/ secondary role. We are not leaving; we are making Iraq grow.

Posted by Your emperor at Friday, March 30, 2007 11:21:03

Jus stop the wars and all will b well!!

Posted by Jolly at Friday, March 30, 2007 18:09:39

iraq is place is divided via different tribes and religions, im kinda sorry to say but maybe iraq NEEDED a strong dictator like sadam to hold it together. after all... the democracy and new government our troops put there now doesn't seem to be working. i think that before our guys went in there peace was in iraq, but after... now people die everyday there

Posted by the thinker at Sunday, April 01, 2007 14:57:56

why can't we all just get along? =D

Posted by the thinker at Sunday, April 01, 2007 14:58:35

^I second that notion. :]

Posted by Courier Fan at Sunday, April 01, 2007 17:36:24

@the thinker:

You call Saddam Hussein's widely-publicized genocide of hundreds of thousands of Kurds by biological weapons peace in Iraq?

Before you make random comments supporting your hippie-ideals, do some research and know what you're talking about.

Posted by the thinker doesn-t think at Monday, April 02, 2007 13:20:49

the thinker doesn-t think,

It's widely publicized that as many as 600,000 have died in Iraq since we invaded.

Does one excuse the other? Which one should be excused?

You seem to be living with a black-and-white, good-and-evil style world view. Well, guess what? Reality comes in full color. Guess what else? Two things, Saddam's murders, and the U.S.'s murders, can both be evil.

Which is the lesser evil? The one with more "widely publicized" deaths?

Before you make random comments supporting your conformist ideals, do some research and know what you're talking about.

Posted by Punkie Boobster at Monday, April 02, 2007 19:31:06

well my point is that after we went in.. iraq is in a worse state than it was before. Iraq CAN NOW be described as virtually 3 different states and they're at war.And of course war=more deathes, PLUS the war threatens to bring in OTHER NATIONS such as IRAN which means MORE death. At least when saddam was in power the threat of a world war in the middle east wasn't apparent.
YES i DO do my reasearch.

sure saddams killing is bad and i never argued against that but look at darfur.. we don't see US troops going there do we? EXACTLY XP

Posted by the thinker at Monday, April 02, 2007 23:16:41

Add Comment