Troops deserve to know the goal of the Iraq war

[UpInArms]

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/9618385.htm

Six U.S. soldiers were killed, two Italian aid workers were kidnapped and warplanes bombed a Sunni enclave in Fallujah, a city mostly off-limits to coalition troops.

It was just another day in the war Tuesday, except for the numbers. By Wednesday morning, Iraq time, The Associated Press’ count of casualties stated that 1,000 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq, aside from more than 100 other coalition soldiers and thousands of Iraqi non- combatants. And many thousands more have been wounded.

It is an obvious point at which to ask: To what end are U.S. personnel continuing to die? What is it that commanders should tell their troops as they head into lethal streets?

<snip>

U.S. withdrawals have been not the result of military defeat but of political calculation, with interim Iraqi governments fearing the anger that all-out assaults would generate.

<snip>

But as other writers have noted, imagine the Republican reaction to the withdrawals and pullbacks if a Democrat in the White House had ordered them.

...more...

[freetobegay]

1. "Troops deserve to know the goal of the Iraq war"

So do the American people!

[starroute]

2. The goal is pretty obvious

It's to hammer the Iraqi people into submission until they give up and accept a US puppet government that will keep the oil flowing. And that's about it. It no longer seems to have much to do with democracy or even free enterprise.

The reason this isn't being discussed openly is because it raises two obvious questions:

1) Is this a worthy goal? Is it something you can ask soldiers to die for and the country to accept a massive increase in the national debt for? Is it something you can demand the acquiescence of the rest of the world in? Is it something you can pursue without incurring massive increases in terrorism through the Islamic world and a more sullen style of anti-Americanism in most of the rest of the planet?

2) Is it even an attainable goal? As Machiavelli tells us, "whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it, for it can always find a motive for rebellion in the name of liberty and of its ancient usages, which are forgotten neither by lapse of time nor by benefits received; and whatever one does or provides, so long as the inhabitants are not separated or dispersed, they do not forget that name and those usages." In other words, it's a game of whack-a-mole where the moles will never stop coming unless we destroy their country completely.

So the only way they're able to make the war seem tenable is by continuing to claim that we're fighting for freedom and the American way of life, at the same time that the actual objectives of the combat -- and the question of just how ruthless we're prepared to get in pursuing them -- are never mentioned.