Making the "Strong," "Tough," & "Macho" Case for Withdrawal
David Sirota
October 10, 2005
Huffington Post
The mainstream media and political pundit/activist class has, for the last few years, been focused on the need for politicians to appear "strong," especially on national security. That word has been distorted by both political parties into a euphemism for "essentially ignoring the people who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, and instead supporting a war in Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."
Despite all of this, we have seen a few courageous politicians step up and talk openly about how ridiculous this oxymoronic definition of "strength" really is. Back in 2004, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) opposed the Iraq War on the grounds that it was taking the military's focus off the more pressing problem of al Qaeda. Earlier this year, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) made the case for a target timetable for withdrawal , noting that it would be in America's national security interests to get out of an ever-worsening and mismanaged situation.
Now, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) is making the case that unless we put withdrawal on the table, the Iraqis will never have a real incentive to take responsibility for their own country's security. Just look at an excerpt of his op-ed in today's Washington Post: [...] Read Levin's article at http://tinyurl.com/drqp3
Sirota's article is on Huffington Post: http://tinyurl.com/cu7ol
© Virginia Metze
October 10, 2005
Huffington Post
The mainstream media and political pundit/activist class has, for the last few years, been focused on the need for politicians to appear "strong," especially on national security. That word has been distorted by both political parties into a euphemism for "essentially ignoring the people who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, and instead supporting a war in Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."
Despite all of this, we have seen a few courageous politicians step up and talk openly about how ridiculous this oxymoronic definition of "strength" really is. Back in 2004, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) opposed the Iraq War on the grounds that it was taking the military's focus off the more pressing problem of al Qaeda. Earlier this year, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) made the case for a target timetable for withdrawal , noting that it would be in America's national security interests to get out of an ever-worsening and mismanaged situation.
Now, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) is making the case that unless we put withdrawal on the table, the Iraqis will never have a real incentive to take responsibility for their own country's security. Just look at an excerpt of his op-ed in today's Washington Post: [...] Read Levin's article at http://tinyurl.com/drqp3
Sirota's article is on Huffington Post: http://tinyurl.com/cu7ol
© Virginia Metze
Starmail - 18. Okt, 10:33
