“We Simply Go On. . .”
The words of Adel Abdul Mahdi, the Vice President of Iraq to reporters grilling him about what is happening in Iraq. Mahdi came to Washington to try to ascertain the intent of the United States. For while politicians and pundits here talk blithely about whether or not to withdraw US forces, there is no withdrawal for the people in Iraq.
The mostly bad news from Iraq this summer left a lot of people in Washington, including a few in the Bush administration, feeling confused, anxious and doubtful about whether the Iraqi government can deliver on its promise to stabilize the country. As it turns out, some of Iraq's most powerful leaders have had similar feelings as they have watched the news from Washington.
That was the message of a quiet pre-Labor Day visit here by Adel Abdul Mahdi, who has been one of America's key allies in the attempt to replace Saddam Hussein's totalitarianism with a democratic political system. Mahdi is now Iraq's vice president, but he called his meetings with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and key senators and congressmen a "private visit."
In fact, he was here to deliver a message, and ask a question, on behalf of Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who remains Iraq's single most influential figure — and the linchpin of the past 40 months of political reconstruction. Sistani's message to Bush, Mahdi told a group of reporters I joined last week, was that "Iraqis are sticking to the principles of the constitution and democracy." But the ayatollah wanted to know if the United States is still on board as well.
"It's a critical moment. We want to be sure that we understand perfectly what's going on, and what is the real strategy of the United States in Iraq," Mahdi said. "We read in the press about different perspectives and attitudes. That's why we want to be clear — whether there is a Plan B."
We have in this country a vehement debate going on. I happen to be one of the people who firmly believe that pulling out of Iraq right now would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. Others have equally strong opinions in the other direction. Fine, we disagree. But (isn't there always a "but"?) what happens to those we leave behind if we leave? That, I think, is why Mahdi was here. Our press would indicate to anyone looking in at the US that we are in disarray and are failing open on our allies and those who depend on us.
If you believe, really believe, that we should not have gone to war in Iraq, fine. But do you really want the blood on your hands that a pullout would surely lead to? The Iraqis are asking, begging, for us not to leave them. They need time to make it work. The signals our own people are sending are killing them.
And may well kill us.
UPDATE: QandO with some parsing of the numbers.
Other Links to this Post
-
bRight & Early » First Cup 09.04.06 — Monday, 4 September , 2006 @ 5:55 am
By Guy, Monday, 4 September , 2006 @ 7:47 am
Sadly, there is enugh history to warrant the Iraqis concern. It doesn’t help that the MSM deals out its daily dose of negative propaganda. I too, am concerned about what would happen if we were to pull out of Iraq. Ask the people of South Viet Nam what happened when we left them high and dry. We *must* stay the course. Not only would our departure be a death sentence to the grand experiment we call democracy, but the implications of what would happen in the entire Middle East are staggering.
By Bill Franklin, Monday, 4 September , 2006 @ 1:39 pm
> And may well kill us
Indeed. Six American soldiers killed in the last 24 hours. Three billion dollars a week in US money being spent in Iraq. Our troops at the lowest state of readiness in years. Muslim’s opinion of the United States at an all time low across the middle east. Yes, this meddling abroad may very well killl us. Has anyone looked into what motivated the British bombers to carry out their vile acts of terror? Was it British freedom they despised, or the British meddling in the middle east?
I honestly can’t see how you and other neo-cons can continue to stand behind this interventionalist policy. It has not going at all well compared to the money spent and lives lost. When you’re burning 3 billion a week, of course there will be some progress, but the macro-view is clearly bad. And here you are advocating “staying the course,” when the course is dozens of Iraqi civilians dying each day and inflation is up 70%. The Kurds are already taking down the Iraq flag and flying the flag of Kurdistan. If things really were so good, why would they do that?
Your vilification of the MSM reminds me of Vietnam, when the Whitehouse was saying we were winning, and reporting VC kills each week. Only when reporters started showing the reality of the situation did the people wake up to the futility of the war.
So Giaus, what criteria should we use to measure our success or failure in Iraq? You had mentioned earlier that number of attacks going down was a sign of success; should we consider the bounce back in attacks a sign something is wrong? You and the administration compare the anti-war crowd to the 1939 attitude toward Hitler. I consider the administration’s blind fanaticism towards making Iraq work to be the real source of concern.
By Gaius, Monday, 4 September , 2006 @ 1:53 pm
It becomes tiresome dealing with a sock puppet, Jim. Since you’ve stopped pretending to be a conservative, what are you pretending to be this week?
By Roland Hesz, Tuesday, 5 September , 2006 @ 1:59 am
“The Iraqis are asking, begging, for us not to leave them. ”
And half of them to leave them.
Who is right?
Do not leave. Clear up the mess.
By Bill Franklin, Tuesday, 5 September , 2006 @ 2:34 am
If I pretended to be Pat Buchanan would you still evade answering my questions?