When will our troops be coming home?

by David Grand
Ocotober 25, 2006

Not anytime soon, according to Iraq's President Jalai Talibani, who in echoing President Bush's words, told the United Nations that "U.S. troops should remain there until Iraqi security forces are capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security." Meanwhile, the Army is gearing up to keep current troop levels in Iraq for another four years, a clear indication that conditions are too unstable to foresee an end to the war.

That, however, flies in the face of recent polls which showed: that  nearly 92 percent of Iraqis now oppose our presence in their country (perhaps the other 8 percent didn't trust the poll takers); that four out of five believe the U.S. military force provokes more violence than it prevents; that two-thirds of those in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces; that about 62 percent approve of attacks on U.S. troops; and that 77 percent say the U.S. plans on keeping long-term bases on their soil. (Building the largest U.S. embassy there is a start in that direction.)

My reaction to their wanting us to leave el pronto  was, that's okeydokey with me, as I'm sure it'd be with most of the 60 percent of Americans who in a recent poll said, they had no idea what the U.S. is fighting for in Iraq, and with just  as many believing Iraq to be in a full blown civil war.

Time wise, the  war has been dragging on for three and half years, which is six months longer than the Korean War, more than twice as long as World War 1 ("the war to end all wars"), and just short of the length of WW 11. That seems almost impossible, considering how firmly that war is embedded in our collective memory, that was fought for a just cause; indeed, for the best of causes.

By contrast, the war in Iraq is, as Kevin Baker wrote in a recent edition of American Heritage, "not nearly as immense, or as deadly or as crucial--thank God--as the one the 'Greatest Generation' fought."  But that still doesn't account, he says, "for how little it seems to engage us, for its failure to arouse the patriotic fervor in the nation than in earlier wars (with the exception of the divisive Vietnam War), and for the precious few demonstrations there are on either side of the issue."

To which I would only add, that if the draft were to be put in effect, there'd be protest movements (led by college students and frantic parents) that would rival those of the Vietnam War and bring every bit as much pressure on Bush, as was brought to bear on LBJ, to end our involvement in Iraq, and to come up with a specific timetable for pulling out our troops, and redeploying a limited number to Jordan and/or Kuwait, from where they could respond quickly to any crisis in Iraq. Plus, it would allow our military to direct more effort towards combating terrorism worldwide.

It occurred to me in wrapping up this column, wouldn't it be something if Bush were to jump on the polls taken in Iraq, indicating we're not welcomed there (not that we ever were) for his exit strategy? He'd get kudos galore if he did, not only in this country but from around the world for such a courageous (and sensible) decision.

And what a wonderful legacy that'd be for his presidency, with future historians praising him to high heaven for his facing up to reality and reversing rather than staying the course, as well as being a shoo-in for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But like they say, if you're gonna dream, dream big ones.