Lieberman has skewed view on Iraq

There probably aren’t many Connecticut citizens who still support the war in Iraq without question or reservation — and then there’s our senior United States senator.No one, not even the Republican presidential hopefuls, moved as swiftly as Joe Lieberman to condemn President Obama’s decision to pull the remaining American troops out of Iraq by the end of this year. It was a decision originally made by Obama’s predecessor and Lieberman’s fellow Middle East warrior, George W. Bush, something Lieberman — and the candidates — fail to talk about. (When I refer to the candidates, I should exempt Ron Paul, who’s against the war but for all the wrong, isolationist reasons.)Lieberman was “profoundly” disappointed that “after all America and Iraq have been through together, [the leaders of Iraq and the U.S.] could not find the will or the way to reach agreement ... under which a small U.S. force could remain after this year.” After all America and Iraq have been through together? Is he kidding? In his profound disappointment, Lieberman makes Iraq seem like an abandoned ally, rather than a defeated, occupied nation. It is a version of history he shares with very few, other than the neoconservatives who conned a hurting nation into seeking revenge on the wrong country after 9/11 and began a nine-year war.Remember, it all began when the United States launched a bombardment of 300 missiles a day on Baghdad that was designed to destroy the Iraqi army’s willingness to fight. The people who pick catchy names for these acts of war called it “shock and awe.” The tactic’s developers at the National Defense University wrote in 1996 it would disrupt “means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply and infrastructure.” It achieved these goals but did not destroy the enemy’s will to fight, and ultimately required the United States and its few allies to resort to the old fashioned concept of troops on the ground in a long war. This resulted in large numbers of dead Iraqi citizens, long after the army was defeated and dispersed. Small wonder then that the people of the ravaged nation, where the means of transportation, food production, water supply and the rest have never been fully restored, is not enthusiastic about the occupiers remaining. More than 4,000 U.S. military gave their lives, but we never kept an accurate body count of Iraqis. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands to more than a million, which leaves what we have been through together somewhat out of balance. Credible estimates also place the cost to our economically distressed nation in the $800 billion to $1 trillion range. I can find no estimate of Iraqi financial losses.Lieberman said every military leader has told him no fewer than 10,000 troops would have to remain in Iraq to keep the peace and “complete our mission in Iraq,” whatever that might be, beyond eliminating Saddam Hussein. That was the mission accomplished, wasn’t it? These are not the same military leaders who told President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Lieberman that shock and awe would do the job in days or weeks. They are long gone, supplanted by new leaders in whom Lieberman apparently retains complete confidence. According to Lieberman, it is vital that several thousand American troops stay in Iraq and continue to be the targets of incendiary devices and car bombs “to safeguard our hard won gains,” again, whatever they may be. I can think of little more than the elimination of a dictator, something other countries in the region have managed without the sacrifice of American lives. “The fact that they will not [remain in Iraq] is deeply worrisome for America’s national security and will be deeply thrilling and encouraging to the fanatical regime that controls Iran, seeks to control Iraq and threatens us all,” according to Lieberman. I don’t know how deeply thrilling and encouraging it will be for the Iranians with the Fifth Fleet in nearby Bahrain and American troops down the road in Kuwait and Qatar. Lieberman didn’t mention that, either.But he’s also been quick to oppose the Obama legislation aimed at jobs, saying we have to stop spending money we don’t have, except in the Middle East. That’s the Lieberman doctrine. Billions for war, not one cent for jobs. Simsbury resident Dick Ahles is a retired journalist. Email him at dahles@hotmail.com.