Rusted Sky

"A withdrawal now...will have a horrible end"

Yesterday afternoon, I sat down with Alaa Makki, who is one of the lead members of the Sunni block in the Iraqi parliament. As recently as two weeks ago, The Washington Post referred to Dr. Makki as having "close ties with the insurgents," and according to additional reporting from the same source, the Sunni block is threatening to withdraw from the cabinet out of frustration with the political situation--and so to destabilize the government. But Dr. Makki also made some news recently when he spoke out against the terrorist attack on the Iraqi parliament, which was perpetuated by that purported ally of the Sunni, AQI. Indeed, the very Washington Post article that reports his ties with terrorism suggests that Dr. Makki's group is severing its connection with AQI--although the Post worries that the isolation of al Qaeda will turn out to be a bad thing for Iraq's political futures. Be that as it may, I agree that there is cause for frustration in Iraq. Each block has its particular hot button issues, and is fiercely defending its interest. But unlike the Sadrists, who reject all suggestions of negotiation and compromise, Dr. Makki suggested an openness to negotiation and an interest in promoting nationalism rather than sectarianism. A couple of other points to note are his thoughts about the ISF and his reaction to the idea of a swift American withdrawal according to the timetable proposed by congress. Read what he says and see what you think.

They're pandering for votes - nothing more, nothing less. Oh, there MIGHT be a smidgen of principle there, but it's more important to slam Bush, to gain power, to get the CONTROL they see as their due since '00 when they tried to grab the election in Florida. (And to rehash that, there wasn't a single valid count that showed Gore winning, and I'm STILL pissed how they tossed out the military absentee ballots.)

Y'see, this is what I'm really, really disliking about the posturing the Democrats are doing now. They're not looking at ANYTHING but their short-term gains. The Iraqi people be damned, THEY can't vote. They think they can run on a 'Bring the Soldiers Home' platform - but they're overlooking something.

This isn't the '70s. The military's no longer composed of a mix of draftees that didn't want to be there, and folks who enlisted for a variety of reasons, including that most ignoble and maligned by the intelligentsia one - patriotism.

And what they're doing in Iraq is rebuilding a country's political system. The folks over there are getting a crash course in how to be political animals and activists - and that will stick.

You bring them home before they can finish the job - and they're not going to be grateful. They will see the Democratic party as the party which forced a loss in Iraq, as they did in Viet Nam. They will look on as the carnage runs anew in the ME, as Syria and Iran run amok and slice up the state establishing itself in Iraq... without US intervention. They will watch as the Dems make political hay out of it all. And they're going to watch the work that's been done, the progress that's been made, go down the tubes so the Dems can get a few more seats. Losing a war, because a win would be inconvenient.

Wouldn't it be interesting... if these political animals decided enough was enough? I'm not talking military coup - I'm talking folks getting out of the military and deciding to cut the legs out from under the Democratic party. Because they can tell when they're being used for political purposes.

"And, Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just arrived back from Afghanistan -- we never got a letter, we never got a visit from you, you didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high."

What was the response? Murtha said nothing, while Moran attempted to move on, no pun intended, stating: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was a statement."

It was indeed a statement; a statement from both a constituent and a veteran that should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment highlighting a supposed breach of protocol. This exchange, captured on video (it was on C-SPAN), has since been forwarded from base to base in military circles. It has not been well received there, and it only raises the already high level of frustration among military personnel that their opinions are not being heard.

It's not MEANT to be intrusive, of course... just a reminder of what should already be practiced.

But isn't it odd that this should come down now, after Reid proclaimed we've lost in Iraq? I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone high in the Democratic Party called up someone at the Pentagon and made them an offer they couldn't refuse. "Silence the troops. Or you won't get shit in the budget, ever again."

Don't get me wrong, I think OPSEC is vital. I also think that the poor sod who's given the job of OPSEC manager will be overwhelmed with trying to check emails and blogs - and a blanket proscription wil come down. Confusion will reign - and in a couple of years things will be clarified to the point where blogs are acceptable again.

But for a critical period of time - there will be silence from Iraq.

J.