Why is the U.S. still in Iraq?

Earlier this month, the U.S. President George Bush marked the Memorial Day in a speech about valor at the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

 

Laying a wreath of remembrance at the Tomb of the Unknowns, Bush started his speech invoking the memory of fallen U.S. soldiers as a reminder of the need to "complete the mission in Iraq".

 

"On this Memorial Day, we look out on quiet hills, and rows of white headstones, and we know that we are in the presence of greatness," the U.S. President, who described the ceremony with more than 296,000 graves at Arlington as a "place where valor sleeps," said.

 

"All who are buried here understood their duty. They saw a dark shadow on the horizon, and went to meet it," Mr. Bush said. "They understood that tyranny must be met with resolve, and that liberty is always the achievement of courage."

 

Again Bush reiterated his country's commitment to its "mission" in Iraq.

 

"Our nation is free because of brave Americans like these, who volunteer to confront our adversaries abroad, so we do not have to face them here at home," he said. "Our nation mourns the loss of our men and women in uniform; we will honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives - by defeating the terrorists, by advancing the cause of liberty, and by laying the foundation of peace for a generation of young Americans."

 

So far, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and more than 2000 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq war and 18,000 American soldiers had been wounded in the U.S. "mission" in the country.

 

What is the mission the U. S. is committed to in Iraq? asks an editorial on Lewrockwell.com. Is it the repeatedly mentioned claim that the U.S. came to the country to liberate Iraqis from the hands of their oppressor leader and rid the world of his threat?

 

Well, if this is the reason, then what is the U.S. still doing in Iraq? Saddam is no more the Iraqi leader, he's in prison awaiting word on his fate from the court the occupation set up to conduct a theatre trial to convince the world that after the age of injustice and brutality, democracy is back once again in Iraq.

 

Is it to plant the flag of "democracy" and "freedom"? Again-  if we considered December elections in Iraq credible and ignored the systematic bias against Sunni Arab regions, then this means that the U.S. "mission" is accomplished and its military presence in Iraq is no more justified.

 

Is it the fear of weapons of mass destruction which President Bush alleged in the run up to Iraq war that Saddam possessed?

 

Numerous inspections before and after the war failed to find any of these weapons in Iraq.

 

Did the U.S. invade Iraq simply to install a "democratic" government? Even if that was the reason? What are the American invading troops still doing in the country? A government, selected by the Bush administration rather than the Iraqi people, had already been elected.

 

Why would the U.S. spend half a billion dollars to build the world's largest embassy if it wasn't planning for a long stay in Iraq?

 

What happened to the billions of dollars aid allocated for reconstruction projects in the war-devastated country? Iraqis suffer lack of electricity, clean water and sewers, things they had during the rule of Saddam and before the occupation destroyed them with U.S. bombs and missiles.

 

If we believed the numerous statements by the Pentagon chief about training the Iraqi army, now completely capable of handling the country's security, another reason used by Bush's admin to justify the extended presence in Iraq- If we believed that the Iraqi army is now trained and capable to handle security, why are Iraqi soldiers still driving around in Toyotas? Where are their armored personnel carriers?

 

It's become crystal clear that the U.S. went to Iraq on a fake foundation of lies and deception. And now it's stuck in the war, looking for ways to get out of a situation the Bush administration created without thinking of a long-term plan. But the Americans' patience appears to be wearing and President Bush will soon have to reconsider his decision to "stay the course in Iraq".

 

The U.S. can't afford an extended war in Iraq, but also a U.S. defeat in Iraq is something the American President would never admit or declare.

 

The best option for the U. S. is to come up with a new story to justify the need to withdraw all forces from Iraq without acknowledging defeat.

 

The U.S. has plenty of spin masters and appeasing media that can portray defeat as victory and the vast majority of Americans will believe it, even if the rest of the world didn't. Remember 911?

 

Source: AlJazeera