Monday, July 22, 2019

Editorial: Have you heard latest reason they insist US troops need to remain in Iraq?

painting 1

Last week, a little reported hearing took place.

THE COMMON ILLS covered the hearing in Wednesday's Iraq snapshot and Saturday's Iraq snapshot.

The Near East Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing entitled "Iraq: A Crossroads of US Policy" and appearing before the Subcommittee were the State Dept's Joan Polaschik (Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs) and the Defense Dept's Michael P. Mulroy (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East).

While the Subcommittee Chair Mitt Romney fretted that Iraq's "significant natural resources" were just sitting there with no one "to exploit them" and that ExxonMobil's $53 billion deal had been "placed on hold,"

But the hearing mainly underscored the latest 'pivot.'  US troops had to remain in Iraq, we are now told, to curb the influence of Iran.

That would be the neighbor that borders them on the east.

This is more nonsense and more money and more lives wasted.

US troops never should have been in Iraq to begin with.  Now they have to stay to try to thwart the influence a neighbor may have on Iraq?

This is beyond nonsense and that's from both sides of the Subcommittee.  In fact, the Ranking Member, Chris Murphy, was pretty much as embarrassing as Mitt Romney.  Murphy made clear he was a dumb ass by declaring, "Listen, I opposed the Iraq war. But I also understand that we have a moral obligation as a country to help fix a nation that we played a leading role in breaking."

The robber doesn't have a moral obligation to be in the owner's home.  The robber needs to get the hell out and that's what should happen with US troops.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }