It's a very interesting question to ask. Why is it, that none of the Democratic presidential contenders, other than Kucinich, have a specific Iraq exit strategy? You know, the strategy that specifically details how and when troops and equipment will leave Iraq. With, like, dates and things.
It's not like we are lacking in Iraq exit plans written by analysts and experts. We are lacking an Iraq exit plan written by the Pentagon, for God's sake. Hillary made an attempt to find out if the Bush administration had a strategy, and she was slapped down like an errant school girl and although she whined and complained, she accepted that answer. Why? I want to know. Because, if there isn't a good reason, then the Democrats are colluding with the Bush administration to keep us in Iraq for many years to come.
For a long time now, as the pundits argue about how surprised they are that George Bush and Dick Cheney can't admit defeat in Iraq, I have known that, contrary to some opinions that they are stupid, or stubborn, or in denial, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND IRAQ IS A HUGE SUCCESS FOR THEM.
Why does most of the American media ignore huge facts like the permanent military bases we have been and still are building? Why are we building the largest embassy in the entire world in Iraq? Because we want the Iraqis to hurry up and restore Democracy so we can get our troops home and get back to focusing on our own country? Fuck, no. Bush and Cheney were planning on an ongoing US occupation from the very beginning. They just lied to me, and you, because we're too toothless and dumb to know anything, and they just want us to go away and let The Chosen Ones run the world.
Let me say something loud and clear: George Bush and Dick Cheney are thrilled with their success in Iraq because their own neoconservative goals have been met, not the goals they set publicly, to hoodwink the American people, but the goals they set many years ago to dominate the Middle East and the oil supplies there (PNAC, PNAC, P freakin' NAC).
I encourage you to read this Vanity Fair article from beginning to end (thanks to my friend Arthur who sent me the link). But the following excerpt is extremely important to read, and pass along (bold emphasis mine):
As for , Jim Holt makes the persuasive counter-intuitive argument for this thesis in a piece for the London Review of Books called “It’s the Oil, Stupid,” which begins, “Iraq is ‘unwinnable,’ a ‘quagmire,’ a ‘fiasco’: so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be ‘stuck’ precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no ‘exit strategy.’ ” Spreading democracy in the region was never the goal, a quick in-and-out never in the cards, despite ’s misty-eyed testimony to the contrary. The goal was to take control of Iraq’s oil resources and stand guard over its infrastructure, which is why military bases with world-capital-size airport runways and suburban comforts (miniature-golf courses, fast-food restaurants, sports fields) are under boomtown construction in . Holt writes, “The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest—including all yet to be discovered oil—under foreign corporate control for 30 years.” All in all, a pretty sweet deal for the U.S. and trans-national corporations, paid for in part thus far by the sacrifice of nearly 4,000 American troops and countless thousands of Iraqis, a necessary cost of doing business if you don’t mind having others get their hands bloody.
Holt:The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades—a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics—dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final ‘surge’ that has hastened internal migration—could scarcely have been more effective. The costs—a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws)—are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.
Which may explain the final sentences in the epilogue to Draper’s , where the author says that Bush had no intention of marking time until the last tick of his presidency. He’s going to go out with a bang. Once the “surge” strategy in pays off, “that big ball would be back in his hands again, and he would heave it long.” In Beltway gridiron lingo, this might be interpreted as signifying that Bush is going to drop back in the fourth quarter and hurl a long bomb downfield at . If Bush feels he’s achieved a winning groove, what the hell, why not run up the score, despite the National Intelligence Estimate? Perhaps Bush’s post-presidential memoir should be titled From Coffins to Coffers, since he’s helped fill so many of both.