[WCUSP] Fwd: Oregonian on Iraq: "It is time to begin withdrawing American troops"

[yvonne simmons]

Have any one of you noticed a shift in your local
paper, like this change of the right wing politics of
the Oregonian in Portland, in your local papers. Maybe
there can be hope for balanced reporting on Israel and
the occupied lands yet. In peace Yvonne.
--- Peace and Justice Works <pjw at pjw.info> wrote:

> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:45:56 -0800 (PST)
> From: Peace and Justice Works <pjw at pjw.info>
> To: Peace and Justice Works Iraq Affinity Group
> <iraq at pjw.info>
> Subject: Oregonian on Iraq: "It is time to begin
> withdrawing American troops"
> 
> Wow, even though this is far from the strongest
> statement we could hope 
> for, this is, I believe, a big deal for the
> Oregonian to write an 
> editorial calling for the troops to start coming
> home from Iraq.
> This appeared in Thursday's paper on page C8. Thanks
> to Herman Frankel for 
> sending the link.
> --dan h.
> Peace and Justice Works Iraq Affinity Group
> 
> 'New way forward' is too little, too late
>     The poor execution of the war has exhausted
> America's patience
>     Thursday, January 11, 2007
> 
>     If we were still optimists, we might believe
> that President Bush's
>     speech Wednesday offered a path to success in
> Iraq. Or at least a real
>     recognition that American strategy -- military
> and political -- must
>     change there.
> 
>     But the lessons of the last four bloody years in
> Iraq leave no more
>     room for optimism. And the president's
> repetition of familiar themes
>     about the need for "victory" brings us no closer
> to believing that
>     21,500 more U.S. troops and some tough talk to
> the Iraqi government
>     will turn things around.
> 
>     It is time to concede that victory in Iraq is a
> mirage. It is time to
>     begin withdrawing American troops. A U.S.
> military solution to Iraq's
>     civil war seems beyond reach now. If there is a
> political solution --
>     within Iraq or regionally -- our continuing
> occupation of the country
>     would seem to make it harder to achieve.
> 
>     We cannot leave precipitously and, in any case,
> we have obligations to
>     those who have worked with us in Iraq,
> especially in Kurdistan, which
>     is hemmed in by hostile neighbors. But we must
> show -- not merely
>     declare -- that our commitment to a recalcitrant
> Iraqi government has
>     reached its limit. America's greatest national
> interest in Iraq now
>     should be to withdraw its young men and women
> from an unproductive
>     fight.
> 
>     The immediate political burden falls not just on
> the president, but
>     also on the Democratic Congress, which should do
> all that it can
>     reasonably can do to change the United States'
> direction in Iraq. Even
>     if it can't stop the deployment of additional
> troops, it should
>     steadily hold the White House accountable for
> its decision to send
>     them to war.
> 
>     The president still believes victory can be
> salvaged from Iraq's
>     turmoil. He says victory is essential to create
> a Middle Eastern state
>     that is America's ally in the war on terror. But
> his new way forward
>     leans heavily on some dubious assumptions.
> 
>     It assumes that the Iraqi government will
> finally treat Sunnis, Kurds
>     and Shia with equal favor: that the Iraqi army
> and police forces will
>     become more disciplined and reliable, and that
> sending 21,500 U.S.
>     troops to join the 132,000 already there will
> make a decisive
>     difference in the level of security in Iraq.
> 
>     Bitter experience argues against those
> assumptions. Add the escalating
>     costs in American blood and dollars and the
> obvious strains on the
>     Army, Marines and National Guard and America's
> course is clear.
> 
>     The president's speech Wednesday would have been
> far more persuasive
>     if it had been delivered 18 to 24 months ago,
> when it was becoming
>     clear that the United States had underestimated
> the resistance of
>     Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters. It
> wouldn't have been too late
>     to believe that a new military approach,
> combined with the outcomes of
>     the successful Iraqi elections, could still lead
> to the emergence of a
>     peaceful, democratic country.
> 
>     But that moment has passed. It's too late now to
> believe that an
>     increase in U.S. troops is anything more than
> what Oregon Sen. Gordon
>     Smith has called President Bush's "Hail Mary
> pass" in hope of a
>     victory.
> 
>     Great Britain says it won't increase its forces
> in Iraq, and most of
>     the rest of the military coalition has
> disappeared. The president is
>     almost entirely alone in believing that the
> United States can still
>     effect a victory in Iraq.
> 
>     The most encouraging things to come from the
> president's speech are
>     the recognition that previous tactics have
> failed to stop Iraq's civil
>     war and the promise that America has reached a
> breaking point with the
>     Iraqi government if it fails to act to quell the
> insurgency. Both
>     developments are long overdue.
> 
>     But a sustained, heavy commitment to Iraq is too
> heavy a burden on
>     American troops, their families and the
> military. Congress should call
>     the question. And American troops should begin
> coming home.
> 
>
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/116848590753930.xml&coll=7
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121