Mindnumbingly Stupid Debate On Iraq Hardly Secures The Mess There

An increasingly shrill, yet mindnumbling stupid debate on Iraq, has captured the nation's political attention the last few days. The political right's arguments have intellectually eroded from any reasoned arguments why "stay the course" is the proper path in Iraq, instead taking on braindead Joe McCartylike insults like referring to Democrats or war opponents as "cowards", "Traitors", or "cut and run" artists. Equally some in the Democratic party invited this mindless debate with Republican partisans when Democratic Rep. John Murtha, a 37 year military veteran made major news by calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq due to numerous ground strategy, equipment, security, Iraqi unemployment and government corruption problems, and U.S. troop strength problems there.

Any reductions in U.S. troop strength after the December 15, Iraqi elections there will be due to U.S. troop levels stretched very thin worldwide. It is simply that the U.S cannot afford to maintain more than 150,000 troops in Iraq for an extended period. Insurgent attacks have actually increased from 150 a week a year ago to 700 a week now, and take an average of 68 Iraqi lives per day, and as many as 5 U.S. troop lives per day. U.S. Army and Marine regular soldiers are stretched so thin with the all volunteer army, that a full 40% of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are lightly armed and equipped, National Guard units. Often enough ammunition, or radios, nightvision equipment or armored Humvees are in severe shortage in these units. Bullets have to be carefully rationed in engagements so as not to run low for future emergency situations in which this protection would be a soldier's best friend in an emergency situation.

Prior to this, another nearly pointless debate raged on for days on the bad reasons that America entered Iraq, where both parties voted overwelmingly to allow Bush to go to war there if he felt necessary. And of course, war not diplomacy was always the goal of Bush in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld, danced around this isue in an unconvincing manner on Sunday's This Week With George Stephanopoulous. Some Democrats charged that "intelligence was manipulated", including Democratic Party head, Howard Dean. Yet no one offered any proof of this. It was merely assumed as a theory. But the truth is that little real intelligence existed from Iraq, instead Ahmed Chalabi, a criminal convicted in Jordan's worst banking scandal was paid monthly payments for supposed "intelligence information", but instead this convicted criminal was merely shaking down both American and Iranian intelligence agencies for payments in a scheme to profit. In Iraq, Chalabi, who is a leader of an armed militia knew that stretching the truth could result in American military involvement in Iraq and serve his needs to grab power there.

And equally bad was the White House political offensive by some like Dick Cheney who sought 5 draft deferments during the Vietnam War, and whose formner company, Halliburton stood to handsomely profit from billions of dollars of no-bid contracts shoveled their way by the Pentagon for Iraq War reconstruction projects. Cheney was very shrill in painting any Democratic claims brought up in the "intelligence manipulation' question. None of the problems in Iraq were addresed. Just a silly partisan shouting match.

Has any of this silly debate improved the failing war strategy in Iraq. Probably not. Is the situation in Iraq likely to become more stable or will American troops now become more safe or be now provided short supply needed equipment. Probably not. Likely all that was achieved was some silly loud partisanship, with virtually no logic behind either side's arguments. And the U.S. is still saddled with a failing policy in Iraq, where ignorance of MidEast history contributed to a war that could drag out for generations if allowed to. The U.S. has now made Iraq very unstable, where making the best of the situation is now very difficult.