Short answer: not anytime soon.
While the public wants out, and Congress is trying to come up with passable legislation, the administration is hell bent on staying and expanding our presence in Iraq.Because of our congressional structure, even if the house passes the Murtha resolution the senate won't. Due to the filibuster, it takes 60 senators to pass any controversial legislation, and there aren't 60 senators who oppose the war. We'll get speeches and rhetoric, but no effective legislation.
The filibuster is one of those rules that can be a safeguard or an obstacle. I was discussing the history of the filibuster with a friend, and she came to accept that as a procedure it's still needed but annoying.
The public anti-war sentiment hasn't spilled into the street yet. While the DC protests have been much larger than the media portrays them, they aren't overwhelming. One reason that the Vietnam protests got so much attention was the massive, nationwide scale made them impossible to ignore. We aren't there yet. And the corporate media will continue to downplay anti-war sentiment for a variety of reasons (profit).
It's hard to predict what would happen in Iraq if we withdraw, but it's hard to see anything being much worse than what we have now. And we will have to withdraw someday. The attrition that increases as we prolong our occupation will slowly bleed us dry.
I was anti-war before the war even began, and one of my main reasons was the aftermath question. Simply put, if you take down Saddam what takes his place? The "flowers and democracy" theory of the administration was delusional at best, arrogant and ignorant at the very least.
So I'm left with the depressing conclusion that we're stuck with this disaster for the remainder of this administration, and no good options for the next one. I don't see any possibility of a positve outcome.
Damn You, Bush and Cheney.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment