[Peace-discuss] Iraq, still…

[C. G. Estabrook]

"...the present war supporters would turn on the new president with a 
ferocity the Democrats are incapable of mustering against the present 
one, attacking her or him as a cut-and-runner of the first order, even 
possibly even a traitor..."

That won't be necessary (which won't prevent it from being said), 
because whoever is president a year from now will do no more than adjust 
("redeploy") the troops occupying Iraq, being as s/he is a supporter of 
the general US policy in the region, viz., that the the US shall control 
ME energy resources.  There is no way, short of a cataclysm, that any 
American president will give up control (even -- perhaps particularly -- 
to a democratic government) of the country with the second largest oil 
reserves in the world.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> A long but reasonable article on what's up in Iraq and the 
> USadministration by Tom Engelhardt:
> *
> *
> *http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/20/7159/*
> 
> /…You have to look to the fringes for perfectly reasonable suggestions 
> on getting out. Take Professor Immanuel Wallerstein, who /_/wrote an 
> essay/_ <http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=24347>/, “Walking 
> Away: The Least Bad Option,” which you won’t find in your local paper. 
> To him, “walking away” would mean “a statement by the US government that 
> it will withdraw all troops without exception and shut down all bases in 
> Iraq within say six months of the date of announcement.” He adds: “U.S. 
> withdrawal would mark the first step on the long and difficult path to 
> healing the United States of the sicknesses brought on by its imperial 
> addiction, the first step in a painful effort to restore the good name 
> of the United States in the world community.”/
> 
> /Right now, however, any form of “walking away,” itself a polite 
> euphemism for retreat from a desperate stalemate or even a lost war, is 
> off that “table” on which this administration has so often placed “all 
> options.” As a result, if either Clinton or Obama were to win the next 
> election, enter office in January 2009, and follow his or her present 
> plan — a relatively long period of drawdown not leading to full 
> withdrawal — he or she would, within months, simply inherit the 
> President’s war. At that point, the present war supporters would turn on 
> the new president with a ferocity the Democrats are incapable of 
> mustering against the present one, attacking her or him as a 
> cut-and-runner of the first order, even possibly even a traitor.…/
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss