The far right warmongers who think the occupation of Iraq is "just swell" love to use the word "surrender" a lot when they describe our pulling out of the country. In fact, John McCain used the word just yesterday in speaking about Sen. Obama’s "lack of experience" when it comes to war. In an interview with the Associated Press, McCain said:
"(Obama) really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue
of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time. If there was any other issue before the American
people, and you hadn’t had anything to do with it in a couple of years,
I think the American people would judge that very harshly."
What I find frightening is the frequency with which the press just parrots that type of thing. The press is supposed to be on the lookout for such garbage, and it’s their job to call them on it, not just listen to it and nod and think of the next question.
Let me say this absolutely clearly and without equivocation:
It is not possible to surrender in Iraq.
That’s right; it’s not possible to surrender when it comes to Iraq. There is literally no one to "surrender" to. One question I’ve been asking for about five years now is, who exactly is the enemy? When we blew into Iraq, guns and bombs blazing, to "Shock and Awe," them, it was ostensibly to uproot the Saddam Hussein government. I hate to break it to right wingers like McCain, but we did that in relatively short order. Saddam is gone, remember? In fact, he’s even been tried and hanged, his sons are dead. In other words, we won the war part of this. In fact, subsequent to winning the war, we allegedly supervised two elections over there, and the elected government is considered to be an ally.
So, if we "surrendered," who exactly would we be "surrendering" to? According to the Bushies, we succeeded in Iraq (the "Mission" was "Accomplished," was it not?); we got rid of the evil regime and replaced it with a democratically-elected regime, did we not?
Let me explain to the press exactly what’s happening with Iraq, because they don’t seem to get it.
We are not "at war" with anyone in Iraq. You see, "war" has a specific definition, and it requires an enemy, as well as specific authorization from Congress. There is no specific enemy in Iraq. The administration likes to use this nebulous word "insurgent" a lot, but it really has no meaning, really, at least as far as we are concerned. We are occupying a country in a region of the world that has seen occupying forces for the last 2000 years, and they are getting a bit sick of it. What we are seeing is a resistance to our occupation, in addition to a civil war that we really have no part in. In fact, here’s an analogy to what we’re doing Iraq now:
Imagine if you will, that some government-hating white guy blew up a government building in the heartland of the United States; say Oklahoma City. In the wake of that horrible tragedy, imagine the Chinese just unilaterally decide to send troops to OKC, to "help" us take care of things. Now, imagine they decided to branch out into Texas and Kansas, as well, and refused to leave when they were asked politely by the US and state governments. Now, suppose the Chinese bombed a bunch of places, under the guise of looking for bad guys who might want to blow up other buildings in the area, and then claimed ownership of the properties they bombed. Now imagine the Chinese refusing to hand over any of the rebuilding jobs to the Americans living in those states, but instead bringing in tens of thousands of contractors to do the work.
Can you imagine the people of those three states and beyond NOT taking up arms and trying to wipe them out? Of course you can’t. And now you understand the position we’re actually in as we occupy Iraq. Based on the current definition, those people would be "insurgents," and if it was to emulate the United States under the Bushies, the Chinese government would be forced to stay until those damn Texans stopped shooting at them, and blonde white guys stopped threatening to blow up buildings.
Now, if the Chinese just decided to leave, because the United States is OUR country, and WE should have control of the safety and security of our people, in what way would that constitute "surrender"?
We have to leave Iraq, because Iraq belongs to Iraqis, not us. Will there be bloodshed when we do? Absolutely. Could it go on for years? Yes, it could. Are we responsible for starting it. Well, George W. Bush is, as is every Congresscritter who agreed to let him have the power to invade Iraq in the first place.
But mostly, the fault in this lies with the press, because it’s the press’ job to tell the truth. That means facts. Not analysis or speculation; just facts. And the fact was and is that the "war" part of this has been over for years, and what were are involved in at this moment is an occupation designed to make a relatively small group of people very, very rich. It’s the largest scam in US history, in which trillions of tax dollars are funneled to contractors over there, while programs that, say, rebuild New Orleans or send soldiers to college when they get back home, are deemed "too expensive."
It’s not possible to "surrender" in Iraq, because there is no one to "surrender" to. In my opinion, the only "surrender" in this situation has already happened; the press has surrendered to the pro-war crowd in Washington.