A piece in the December 27, 2007 Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Vote on fate of Kirkuk postponed,” by Tina Susman and Asso Ahmed of the L.A. Times, reported referendum, to decide whether the oil rich city of Kirkuk will join semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan or will remain under Iraq central government, is being postponed for further six months. Other major decision for the delay is in the re-writing of a national constitution by the head of Iraqi parliament’s constitutional review committee, Humam Hamoudi. This is the fourth time that target date has not been met to articulate the new constitution. Such delays will hinder the progress of other related issues.While Iraqis are kicking the can down the road, Americans are also playing their part in a process. American funded Sunni militia is actively working in more than 300 communities in Iraq with it volunteer numbers growing day by day. They have been credited with reducing violence in some of Iraq’s most violent areas. But a wide belief about the militia is that it could further de-stabalise the country. Writer comments this is quiet a valid concern as the Sunnis who have adopted the friendly strategy may come up again against Shiites and in the case of Kirkuk, the Kurds.Iraq is somewhat on peace these days and it’s a high time that American pull back their men and leave the country announcing “Mission Accomplished”, as the riots wil rise again shortly. But it seems that Bush administration will not withdraw from the country no matter how favourable the situation is. They are planning to hand over the tactics of ugly war to their successors probably the Democrats.“But what of the Democrats who control both Houses of Congress? Why do they keep funding the war, as they just did again?” There are several reasons to continue with the war of aggression and none of them are pretty. Democrats are of view that they will cash the Bush’s war and get more votes. Running against the Bushs war is more fruitful then putting an end to the war. Most of the leading presidential candidates are ambiguous in their campaigns about putting an end to the war America has waged upon the world. According to Lind partially the reason behind this ambiguity is “because just as the neo-cons now dominate Republican circles, so the Democratic Establishment is in thrall to the neo-liberals. Both cabals of neos favor a world-dominating American empire, run of course by themselves. We are reminded once again that while there may be, at least on paper, two parties, there is one Establishment. It does not look favourably on ending the games off which it feeds.”Lind also makes reference to other mid eastern country who wish the war in Iraq to continue and looks forward for the attacks on Iran. Money has never spoke this loud in any election year. Napoleon once said that “I may loose a battle but I will never loos a minute.” American politicians are waiting for the time to run out which their country have so dearly bought in Iraq. Moral burden of command demands from military to step up and go public and announce their departure from the ruined land. Some of them will get fired for their morally ethical response yet General Petraeus probably will remain untouched once again.
But history reveals quiet a grim moral through out the Vietnam war, American generals are more likely to step up to the trough than to the plate.
______________________________
This essay is rephrased from William S. Lind’s article “why do democrats keep funding the war?” Lind is expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.