Yesterday, President George W. Bush gave a speech on the War in Iraq informing us that the “reality is that retreating from Iraq would carry enormous strategic costs for the United States.” The excellent orator that he is, Mr. Bush made a very powerful case about how leaving Iraq would be bad for the U.S. both at home and abroad, as well as having negative consequences for the Middle East.
Here are the president’s arguments with my comments in italics:
- It would incite chaos and killing, destroy the political gains the Iraqis have made, and abandon our friends to terrorists and death squads. George, I know it’s illegal to bring this up, but the War in Iraq has incited chaos, killing, death squads, the influx of terrorists, and U.S. inflicted torture.
- It would endanger Iraq’s oil resources and could serve as a severe disruption to the world’s economy. W., I love you baby, but the world economy has already been disrupted by the the War in Iraq. As a result of the war, oil prices have sky rocketed to record numbers. While everyone around the world has suffered, Exxon has reported record profits. Who would’ve guessed?
- It would increase the likelihood that al Qaeda would gain safe havens that they could use to attack us here at home. Excuse me? You’re going to have to say that a little bit slower. I ain’t as smart as you, Mr. President. There a special hideouts in Iraq — “safe havens” you call them — in the desert that al Qaeda can use to sneak up on us in the U.S.? Are you suggesting that a U.S. retreat would give al Qaeda the free time it needs to dig underground tunnels all the way from the Tigris to the Mississippi?
- It would be a propaganda victory of colossal proportions for the global terrorist movement, which would gain new funds, and find new recruits, and conclude that the way to defeat America is to bleed us into submission. Chicken or the egg, did you say? I am guessing that us going to war in Iraq combined with Abu Ghraib and staying too long, was sufficient propaganda. They really don’t need much more of a victory than that. Heck, but for the war, there would be no terrorists in Iraq.
- It would signal to Iran that we were not serious about confronting its efforts to impose its will on the region. Hmmm. You mean that leaving Iraq would signal to Iran that you’re not serious about going to war with Iran?
- It would signal to people across the Middle East that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word. Bush, habibi, I think that no weapons of mass destruction, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and countless other examples in Iraq and the region give us a solid reputation. Let’s do a poll in the Middle East about whether we should stay or go. My guess is that people are begging for us to break our “word”.
- A defeat in Iraq would have consequences far beyond that country — and they would be felt by Americans here at home. Three thousands U.S. soldiers dead on the battle field, hundreds of thousands wounded, an epidemic of post trauma related suicides, a numeral system that has run out of zeros to calculate the war related debt, and a sinking economy while Exxon is reporting record profits — Mr. President, you’re right, leaving Iraq would definitely be felt at home.
With Bush’s eloquence, it almost makes you not care who wins the 2008 Presidential Elections when you think about it — Obama, Billary, or McCain, they’re all good boys and girls who don’t chew with their mouths open or speak with their mouths full.
2 responses to “The Costs of Retreat?”
Staying in Iraq will have economic costs that this sad, pathetic, weak minded, consumerist only economy can never recover from, even after a multiplicity of generations.
Do what any good Christian would do; pull out.
Then nuke the entire region. Nothing says ‘equality’ like nuclear glass. Neutron bombs should work nicely.
You said it perfectly well in your last line: it doesn’t matter who wins these Elections… It’s not going to be him, hooray!!!