Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The Vote on Iraq

To no one's surprise, Roskam voted against the resolution denouncing the troop build-up in Iraq. Simplistically, in his floor statements, he painted this as a war between America and Islamic nations, and that a yes vote on this resolution demoralizes troops, and fuels the enemy. What is fueling the enemies' ranks are secret prisons, torture, and unilateral pigheadedness.

Now would be a good time to call and write Roskam's office (contact info is found at www.roskam.house.gov). Let him know how you feel about his vote. The fact is that these offices do listen, so we have to speak. Here's a sample of what I'll be saying. Please feel free to use and adapt:

"I am writing to express my disapproval of your recent vote supporting the troop build-up in Iraq. While I agree that the consequences of not succeeding will be great, it seems clear that a build-up in troops alone will accomplish little if any good without also increasing diplomatic efforts and changing policies of detention and torture that are driving people to fight our troops. At a time when most of our allies are announcing that they are pulling troops home, this policy of "stay the course" four years after "mission accomplished" that you seem to endorse does not in any way represent the desires of this constituent."
If we flood his office, he may take notice. And the more pressure we can exert on them to cross the aisle, the more successful we will all be in the things that really matter - ending this war.

1 comment:

Bill Baar said...

Prime Minister Maliki told the world the challange,

"We put everyone before their moral responsibility to take a clear and strong stand in the face of terrorism in Iraq and we expect cooperation to dry up resources for terrorism," stressed Maliki. He added, "The terrorism that is claiming the lives of Iraqi citizens in Baghdad, Hilla, Mosul and Anbar is the same terrorism that intimidated citizens in Saudi Arabia, targeted the people of Egypt, and blew up the twin towers in New York and subways in Madrid and London."

It's arrogance of the most imperialistic sort to think America can end the war or bring peace by redeploying away from the fight. We don't have the power to run. Our foe determined in his cause. (And it is the most misoynistic of males our foes: his cause means his and it's truely a war on women too.)

Maliki knows it but too many Americans caught in a racial-cultural superiority to appreciate the foe. They believe Americans can achieve peace by not fighting.

That will be a sort of peace but will pay a dear price for it.