Submitted by RogerHWerner, Sep 12, 2007 11:51

What is missing from arguments for continued US military presence in Iraq is consideration for the feelings of the Iraqi people. I listened to some testimony and questions/comments this week, and, read media commentary. I haven't heard one statement suggesting that our policy has an obligation to respect the will Iraq's people. If Iraq is sovereign than our policy cannot be justified if its people don't want our troops there. Polls show increasing numbers of Iraqis opposed to US presence and supportive of attacks on US troops. We have 170,000 troops in Iraq and there are some 15 million Iraqis. Thus far, no one has explained how so small a number of troops can pacify so many disgruntled people. That the Maliki government desires our presence for some time is perhaps testimony to how out of touch it is with the people they purport to represent but then it should be clear that it no longer represents the entire Shi'ite community, Sunnis left government in August while Kurds ignore Maliki and act in their best interest. If America continues to ignore the Iraqi popular will, we risk crystallizing world opinion that US goals are self-serving and all talk of democracy is merely a façade for a darker objective--controlling Iraq's oil reserve. Many Americans believe this and suspect a reason for our continued presence is to permit companies supportive of Bush to continue to raid the US treasury. That sounds cynical but since reconstruction has not occurred after having spent nearly $50 billion dollars the majority of which cannot be accounted how can we account for the disastrous reconstruction practices other than to enrich US companies. Not only was our original purpose for invading Iraq based on prevarication and therefore unjustified but also our efforts to "fix what we broke" aren't defensible. America cannot repair damage to Iraq if its people believe we are part of the problem. It would be extremely regrettable if Iraq fell under Iranian political sway but Bush should have considered that before he committed America to invasion and if it occurs in the future I'm afraid Americans will have to live with it. From what I have read, it would appear that Iran is not the bogeyman Bush claims and the present ultraorthodox government is unpopular. With some world encouragement and allowing time, Iranians may depose of their leaders without outside inference, in which case Iranian political hegemony over Iraq may prove a non-problem for America. Petraeus and Crocker seem willing to speculate the worse for Iraq without our continued presence: Why is it they can't offer meaning speculation on when Americans can realistically withdraw. As Clinton said, a willingness to swallow their testimony requires a suspension of disbelief and that's being kind.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.