Playing With War

The Washington Post has promoted the war in Iraq from Day One. They still are, despite nervous protestations about “mistakes made” here and there.

Of course CheneyBush are still in favor of the war. They are doctrinaire imperialists, so how could they be otherwise? Their plan was to assemble a staging area within the middle east from which to scourge tinpot regimes throughout the region, exploiting the petroassets of any and all, preparing against that day when “peak oil” was understood to have passed by during 2004. The CheneyBush plan was to “finesse” the civil discord in the region and make as much of a bloodbath of it as the residents could stand. Every dead Arab, in their view, was a dead terrorist or terrorsymp.


This leaves it to Congress to address the addressable issues. The New York Times believes that Congress can exhibit leadership, although the leadership of the military must reside in the ever-truculent executive. The big question is whether Congress has the will to act above its normal political reflexes, or will it play games with the war on the pretext that it is not their war and therefore they cannot be hurt by it?

The big complicating factor in Democratic politics is that Democrats-surprise! surprise!-are not of one mind on Iraq. Some members of Congress (both houses) are from areas where the idea of losing a war is pure bad mojo among the voters. These are the parents and siblings and friends of Iraq War soldiers and vets, who have been taught since childhood to see something through, come hell or high water. Last night, for instance, in an otherwise anti-war documentary on MSNBC an interview with an Army private in Iraq included the generalization that if you don’t support the war, then you are not supporting the troops, BECAUSE you will be undercutting the reason 3,200+ have given their lives and 20,000+ their limbs and sanity.

OpEdNews