Slouching Out of Iraq
Our departure, after nine years, almost 4500 deaths and trillions of dollars, comes not with a bang but a whimper of exhaustion and relief.
“Iraq will be tested in the days ahead,” says Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, “by terrorism, and by those who would seek to divide, by economic and social issues, by the demands of democracy itself.”
No senior Iraqi official attends the ceremony of departure, marked by muted wishful thinking that contrasts with U.S. arrival of “shock and awe” to find Saddam Hussein’s phantom nuclear arsenal.
What we leave behind is a dead tyrant and a fractured, fragile nation.
At this moment, it’s fitting to recall what Robert Byrd warned in 2002 before the Senate voted to authorize the invasion:
“We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and or an unlimited period of time.
“Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.”
MORE.
3 Responses to “Slouching Out of Iraq”
Departure? We still have bases there.
It seems like we’re just one false flag operation away from invading Iran.
I liked the article, the headline not so much.
Would tiredly or pragmatically be better, probably not, but neither a whimper.
Wars seldom end gloriously with no great loss of innocent or military deaths and grave injuries. Better this semi-political withdrawal than the ugly spectacle of Vietnam. Even if completely wrong in its inception (and possibly motivation), hopefully “the end” will not have an evil tail of more death and destruction due to creating a vacuum caused by taking too many troops out too quickly.
War stinks, and even the “winners” pay a big price.
I would also prefer a different title. “Wisely Out of Iraq” seems more appropriate. Now lets get out of Afghanistan.