Iraq War Over? In Name Only, Perhaps

Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, and especially the left wing Democrats on CNN, MSNBC and even those on that British Conservative station, Fox, the Iraq War is hardly over - nor is its reported "end" the result of Mr. Obama's stated campaign promises (except to promise what Bush had already agreed to before leaving office).

It was reported four short years ago that George Bush, during his last three months in office, quietly met with the "new" Iraqi government and agreed to a massive troop withdrawal beginning in 2010 and winding down by the first two weeks in December, 2011.

Which is exactly what has occurred, as agreed.

Just prior, of course, to the next presidential election in this country.

The mainstream media reported it, however, it appears the politicians in Washington hope and pray that Americans will buy this troop withdrawal as ending the War in the Middle East and crediting Mr. Obama for this massive coup.

Until, of course, there is another tragedy involving the U.S. in Iran, Pakistan, or wherever else the military decides it needs to go to bomb, and then rebuild.

The government contractors, of course, are still in Iraq and probably will be there for quite some time.

With, of course, military personnel still there also in order to not leave Iraq totally without a U.S. presence, and keep those government contractors and their safety as their primary priority now that the war is "over." With the convenient capture also of Osama bin Laden this year too (buried at sea in the Muslim tradition?) This has been quite a year for both Mr. Obama's party, and Mr. Bush's.

The AP also reported today in another article regarding a 662 Billion Appropriations Bill, not carried on the front pages or web alert pages:

"Highlighting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon. The bill also authorizes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department.

Frustrated with delays and cost overruns with the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program, lawmakers planned to require the contractor, Lockheed Martin, to cover the expense of any extra costs on the next batch and future purchases of the aircraft. The Pentagon envisions buying 2,443 planes for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, but the price could make it the most expensive program in military history — $1 trillion.

The legislation freezes $700 million for Pakistan until the defense secretary provides Congress a report on how Islamabad is countering the threat of improvised explosive devices."

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5

It really shocked me that included in this article is a provision that in the event an American is involved in some terrorist plot (although it seems Washington's politicos are the greatest terrorists of all), they too can be detained indefinitely, and without bail or bond.

Isn't that fundamentally unconstitutional, since Mr. Obama has also consented to "allow" these type actions, with the exception of any actions instigated by al Qaida or its affiliates, to be heard in the civil courts, rather than military courts. So that terrorism and those individuals defense costs can be "privatized," I guess, against all that foreign oil money from the countries that these individuals really call their home.

I mean I could understand having "open" military trials for those so accused who are not Americans but somehow got a visa and entered from one of the more than 40 countries the Bush Administration afforded free pass visa waivers during his term of office, under those "free trade" agreements using foreigners as commerce now that "commerce" and "people" have been so ill defined progressively.

Not to mention "foreigners" or "foreign enemies."

But affording the civil courts for these trials when our national security was and is so poor that a 9-11 could have even happened here in the first place, knowing just how much ill will there is in that part of the world against America and the West due to our decade upon decade presence there, force feeding our Western ideas of "freedom" - a definition of freedom that those in this country doubt the founding fathers would recognize as the inherent freedoms they were speaking of when our Constitution was ratified.

Many of these Middle Eastern countries, it appears, have little formal military for defense of their country and its people, but rather seems they are instead personal armies for the protection of the various dictators who progressively have ruled many of those countries.

From reading most of the web comments on the reported story of the "end of the War in Iraq," I'm not the only American both skeptical, and also with a longer memory than most of the mainstream media types and politicos give Americans credit for.

I predict that there will be another huge national security incident during Mr. Obama's next term of office (you don't really believe that old Newt, or Mitt, or Ron Paul even will take the coveted presidential prize this election, do you?).

So then we can have a Republican win the next election, and the status quo will then continue simply under a "change of face and party."

Perhaps against all odds by Iran (we are again beating the drums over Iran and its development of nuclear weapons - apparently a gigantic threat to this country even given our massive military might, and all the money we have spent on national defense and toys, and Reagan's Star Wars program in the 1980's). Or Pakistan (still a threat to India, apparently, another former British possession).

I guess that is why today, "The End of the War in Iraq Day", there were no parades...