Americans Want a Rapid Exit from Iraq but Elected Leaders Aren't Even Considering It...

[marmar]

from AfterDowningStreet.org:

Americans Want a Rapid Exit from Iraq but Elected Leaders Aren’t Even Considering It
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-12-29 15:36. Media

Ending the occupation will reduce violence, immediately save more than $100 billion and respect the wishes of the American people. Why is Washington, DC ignoring the obvious?
By Kevin Zeese

If the election results did not make the message clear, polls since the election have done so. Support for sending additional troops to Iraq is at 11 % according a December 15-17 poll by CNN. The same poll found that 54% of Americans want the troops home by the end of 2007 and 67% oppose the war. Yet, in the Capitol there is talk of adding new troops and almost no talk of getting out of Iraq. Representative government is failing to represent the voters.

Why is the leadership of both parties in Washington, DC failing to discuss getting out of Iraq – rapidly? They say a U.S. exit will lead to an escalation of violence, a blood bath or civil war. But the truth is we can design a rapid exit from Iraq that reduces the risk of violence. How?

First, it is important to look at the real violence. While sectarian violence gets all the attention in the U.S. media. The November 2006 DoD report, “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq” found that more than 80% of violence is directed at the U.S. military or at the Iraqi military. “Coalition forces attracted the majority (68%) of attacks.” said the report. Attacks on Iraqi Security Forces are the next largest category, with attacks on civilians being the smallest group. Thus, the real war is between Iraqi’s fighting the U.S. and its Iraqi allies. Of course, civilian’s amount for the most casualties as they are unprotected when attacks occur.

Dahr Jamail, a top reporter on Iraq, reports on December 28th in an article entitled “More Troops but Less Control in Iraq” that “Through the occupation, each time the U.S. has increased troop levels, there has been a corresponding increase in attacks on the forces, and consequently an increase in civilian casualties.” Thus, rather than learning from past experience the Bush administration, with a compliant Congress, are likely to repeat past mistakes.

On December 6 James Baker, the co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, even admitted to Anderson Cooper on CNN that removal of U.S. troops may reduce the violence.

“COOPER: And is it possible that getting the U.S. troops out will actually lessen that violence, that it will at least take away the motivation of nationalist insurgents?

“BAKER: Many people have argued that to us. Many people in Iraq made that case.

“COOPER: Do you buy it?

“BAKER: Yes, I think there is some validity to it, absolutely. Then we are no longer seen to be the occupiers.” ...... (more)

The complete article is at: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16771

[shain from kane]

1. Violence should decrease with 130,000 fewer targets.

[marmar]

2. There you go with that "reality-based" stuff again....

That's not how our current administration operates.

[ThomCat]

3. It is clear that our reps are working for people other than us.

I want to know who is paying them, coercing them, or controlling them other than the people who voted for them, and I want to see investigatins and indictments because of this! x(

It's a damned crime that corporations can control our entire government like this for their own profit.