LAT editorial: We will pay for next 11 months in Iraq with hundreds of lives, 10 billion dollars

Another $100 billion for Iraq?
Eleven more months of surge would mean $100 billion that could be better spent elsewhere.
September 12, 2007

Iraq is too important to lose, so we've got to keep on trying, no matter the cost, and though it's not clear when we will succeed. This is the essence of the two-day report to Congress by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. The general and the ambassador freely admitted that the situation in Iraq is frustrating, that U.S. military might cannot force Iraqis into the political reconciliation that is the only basis for real stability, and that it's impossible to predict when Iraqis will be able to run their country themselves. Nevertheless, they argued, the consequences of U.S. troops departing could be so horrific -- Iraq turning into an Al Qaeda haven plagued by ethnic cleansing and preyed upon by Iran -- that the only prudent course is to keep at least 130,000 soldiers in Iraq at least until July.

President Bush is expected to accept this recommendation in a speech Thursday. Despite Democratic protests, it's unlikely that this toothless Congress will stop him from continuing the de facto occupation of Iraq for the remainder of his term. We fear this is a grave mistake that will compound the colossal error of invading Iraq in the first place -- although we fervently hope that Petraeus, Crocker and the courageous people they lead will somehow manage to prove us wrong.

The president will ask the nation to pay for the next 11 months in Iraq with billions of dollars and hundreds of lives. We think this sacrifice will be in vain, because only Iraqis can heal their national wounds. And so we ask instead: What else could the United States do with a guesstimated $100 billion to reduce the strength and the appeal of Islamist terrorist groups worldwide?

That money may be needed to defend Afghanistan against the resurgent Taliban, or to track Al Qaeda elsewhere. But does our creative country have no better ideas for winning Muslim friends and thwarting terrorists? How about spending $20 billion on anti-poverty and education programs in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, to give the population a reason to fight the Taliban? Or distributing $20 billion in emergency support to impoverished Iraqi families? Wouldn't $10 billion help repatriate the 2 million Iraqi refugees abroad and resettle the 2 million inside Iraq who have fled sectarian violence? Would $10 billion for child-health programs in Islamic nations help demonstrate that Americans are not, in fact, at war with Muslims? Certainly another $10 billion could pay for more than 55,000 bright students (from anywhere in the world) to spend four years studying Arabic, Islamic thought and counter-terrorism at the University of California. And heck, that would still leave $30 billion to beef up domestic and international law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security.

Is staying the failing course in Iraq truly the only prudent course of action?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-iraq12sep12,0,1250102.story?coll=la-home-commentary

This isn't about "Iraq" or "terror" or "chaos" or any of that maudlin crap. This is about long-term corporate control of resources. Period. This is about "positioning" for future corporate "needs" - whatever they may be. We Americans can be so "cute" sometimes. We try and pretend that our little charade of a country is actually what we pretend that it is. We actually seem to be convinced (sometimes) that we really believe the propaganda that we are fed from cradle to grave. In the book "1984", the reader knows that even the citizens who seem to buy into the "system" with joy and fervor, actually understand, below the surface, that it was all a sham - and they go along out of fear and a desire for "security". I like to think that we are the same. We really know, deep down, that all of this is just a facade, but, sometimes, I'm not so sure that we understand...

We began as a democracy but almost as soon as the last signature was attached to the Declaration of Independence we began moving towards oligarchy and for the past 50 years we have begun to expand that oligarchy through "colonization" achieved mainly by CIA-directed coup d'etats in various countries around the world. Someone once said that as the sun began to set on the British Empire, it began to rise on the American Empire.

We were doomed from the beginning. Even Benjamin Franklin, when reflecting on the Constitution, predicted that within 200 years the Constitution would fall under the weight of corruption which he believed to be innate in all human beings who choose not to rise above it. He obviously didn't believe the new American people could. And he was right. Almost 200 years later Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington. And 27 years later, the Constitution has collapsed under the weight of the corruption. And it is a moral corruption. We are a corrupt and predatory people at this point.

But it is a corruption that is not restricted to the Republicans. It is as evident in the Democratic Party as much as the Republican Party. We elected Democrats a year ago with a mandate to restore the Constitution. They have not done so. Only a few have spoken up and spoken out. Dennis Kucinich stands alone in many respects.

Reality is we have also become a discontented people. Our lives are no longer so convenient. Or easy. But few of us really want to make the sacrifices necessary to change things. So we remain discontented. Raging and ranting on the internet. And changing nothing. Expecting someone else to change it for us. We have to change it for ourselves. And won't. The percentages of people voting during the primaries are often revealing. "Let someone else change it. Let someone else choose. We will simply vote for the party candidate." Instead of voting for the right candidate who might actually change something. Our candidates are not always the candidate who the majority really supports. They are simply the candidate that the majority of the few who voted in the primary voted for. Many assume the candidate they support can't win the primary so they don't bother. If enough people did bother, the candidate everyone thought couldn't win might win. And we might possibly see change. Ranting and raving is fine. It's good at times. But walk the talk. Particularly during the primaries. Things can change. But we have to change them.

As for Iraq, the American people really have tired of the lies and the excuses. At this point, the lies and the excuses of both parties. We should tell the politicians to either end the war or plan on retirement next time at the polls. And mean it.

No one should be above challenge within their own party. The party leaders say they are. But the party leaders are not the party. The people are. Time for the people to realize that. Few apparently do.

When has Bush or his buddies ever paid for anything? Who has ever held them to account? Their parents? Their military superiors when/if they were in service? When he says or does stupid things right now?

Do Democrats do anything effective against him? Really? When?

Bush will get away scott-free, and leave us with the bill and the corpses, and nobody will care - oh, some progressive pundits will wail and weep, but that's just background music.