Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do ...a letter from Michael Moore
Sunday, November 26th, 2006

Friends,

Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.

Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"

The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Ghandis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.

This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.

3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.

In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.

But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.

Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.

We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.

Yours,

Michael Moore


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/messa ... php?id=202

Did he forget the or is he seriously using this an argument to withdraw from Iraq, because that's what it sounds like, and it's gobsmacking in its stupidity.

I do NOT like Michael Moore or his tactics.

I DO think he's right that this is not the way to liberate a country, and that we've screwed up, big time.
I DO think we need to get out of there ASAP and let the chips fall where they may.

Do you not think the coalition forces have a duty of care towards Iraq, considering it was them that plunged it into its current state?

I'm not sure if this was too well-written and making me ignore all the truth, but I agree with him 100% nonetheless. At this point, I don't even care if people don't know the truth, as long as the not knowing leads us to make changes. That is why I have always had respect for Moore, he may twist things to make them sound better, but I agree with his goals so I can't complain about how he does it.

Here's one point to the argument that I don't understand....getting out ASAP is very appealing when you consider that our troops will no longer be in harms way, but is the subsequent bloodbath acceptable?
I am not looking to debate Iraqi self-determination...it seems to me that the only thing standing in the way of a situation far worse than it already is is the presence of our troops (their ability to establish some security, that is). I'm not advocating that we stay for decades, but the Iraqi force is not ready to take the job over.
I find it hypocritical that Moore would point to the Johns Hopkins Study of the number of Iraqis that have died since the invasion (I won't go into the validity of that) and what a terrible thing it is....and in the same letter advocate an immediate, full withdrawal of our troops (which will lead to a bad situation turning into a total nightmare).

It's a fair question, for sure. However, at the point where your presence impedes said goal, I think you've got to reevaluate the situation. They don't want us there, and we don't want to be there. It's all selfish political purpose that wants to stay in the game. But if that's all there is, it's not going to end well.

The French analogy was pretty weaksauce. The French didn't give a damn about the colonists, they just wanted to stick it to the British. Its also telling that they sold almost all their American holdings a few short decades later because they didn't have the resources to hold them. How could they be expected to occupy New England when they couldn't handle the Lousiana Territory?

It's not like there isnt a bloodbath going on there already. The difference is that it will be dragged over a much longer time as long as we are there, instead of all at once if we leave. You can't always predict what might happen, but then again, this isnt our country. We threw any credibility about what's acceptable and not acceptable out the window the minute we invaded.




I dont think it makes any difference if it's the US or Iraqi forces, they are seen as the same targets, and represent the same problem. The Iraqi forces will never "be ready" any more than US forces. And you can see how well that's been working out for us.

Just to add...Moore's notion that the new Congress will "control the purse strings" and thus the way the Democrats can get the US out of Iraq is to withhold funding is stupid. Not to say he isn't correct, but they will never do that (although there are a few that have brought up the idea). Doing so would be political suicide.

Please explain to me why anyone cares what Michael Moore and his cohorts think.

The guy is full of so much shit and self-loathing for himself (look how he treats his body), the public (look at his very fictionalized "documentaries") and America (just about every public statement he makes).

Because he addresses relevant issues that a lot of people want to hear about.



A very weak comment. Completely and totally irrelevant. Everyone has their own personal issues, it doesn't make political arguments any more or less valid.



I would be the first to say that I strongly dislike Moore's tactics and how he skews his films. However, it's also fair to say that the issues he raises are still completely valid. It's just the means that are in question.



So, because you are critical of what your government does, it makes you full of shit?

Sorry, I don't think you've really said anything to dispute the issues Moore raises, nor the validity of his arguments. Like I said previously, I'm not a Moore fan. I disprove of his tactics and his films are "creatively" edited and skewed to overstate some points.
However, I still see the issues he raises as legitimate issues that need be addressed. Tho, I disagree often about his resolutive suggestions.

Michael Moore doesn't bring up any topic or arguement that others haven't and more eloquently or without all the bs that Moore can't help but add.

Having Michael Moore publicly on your side of any issue only does more harm than good. But I truly think he doesn't give a fuck because at the end of the day he views himself as an entertainer with the mindset that no publicity is bad publicity. With Moore the issue is just a means to an end, and that end is getting his name out there.

The difference between, say, you or I bringing up an issue, or, say, Michael Moore or Eddie Vedder bringing up the same issue is that when you or I do it, we've got maybe a couple people who listen. When they do it, they've got an audience of millions. When you are trying to raise an issue or awareness about something, some voices are louder than others.



I'll agree to that point. I get frustrated with Moore's viewpoints that get mashed in with his facts, that to many, make them look one and the same. And they are not. However, you can separate the two, if you are paying any attention at all.



I think that might be debatable. A legitimate issue is a legitimate issue, no matter who is vouching for it. Just because someone like Charles Manson might point out a sociological truism, doesn't mean he isn't correct.
However, it's usually true that the more attention you draw to something, the quicker it will be either validated or dismissed. I have yet to see most of Moore's issues dismissed.

Michael Moore >>>>>>>>>>>> Man Coulter


Michael Moore at least brings up topics w/ facts. Coulter NEVER bothers w/ fact.

Go ahead and dispute the content of his article if you want. Saying he is fat and self loathing really doesn't do much for your arguement.

You know, LeninFlux, you are great at finding horrible articles that seem to prop up the Bush line. And you quote these words like "cut-and-run" ad nauseum. And you loooove to say that the democrats have no plan (forgetting that bushy NEVER had a plan to begin with, and it is for that reason that we are in this mess...and Americans showed that they never believed the shit that you and cheney and bush spout about no plans).

However, what is your solution? What does your dad georgy think about what we should do? It was this administration's crap planning and foresight that got us in this mess, so how do we get out of it? Quit finding shit quotes and articles, and find me one that shows a good republican plan? Do you honestly believe we are taking the fight to the terrorists? Have you seen the massacres the past couple days? You can CLAIM they were al-queda supported all you want, but what difference does it make (not to mention you have no basis for that claim)? How can we win this? How can we mediate a sunni v shiia civil war? You know what happens with that...

And don't give me this shit about "we have to train Iraqis so that they can step up and serve their government." Uhhh, that's fine and all, but when in a civil war, and when you are getting slaughtered, I would think it would be quite difficult to find good recruits who are unbiased and willing to risk their lives so your country can leave. And if you even mention that it isn't as bad as it looks, and that it is all the liberal media bias, I swear to whatever god is sending cheney to hell that I will gladly take your enrollment in the army. So give me something worthwhile, and leave out any -isms or punch lines, thank you.

That's like saying Pol Pot >>>>>>>>> Hitler. It may be true but both are pretty shitty specimens of humanity.

Moore's problem is that he doesn't stick to facts, he can't help but fictionalize in his so called "greater good". He's not one to let facts get in the way of the point he's trying to make. Like when he says "We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad." I like how he conveniently forgets that for some countries WWII went on for a lot longer than the US's involvement. So I'm not sure what "we" he refers to, because it sure can't be the allied forces. Embellishment is as natural to him as over eating.

And for all his writing what point is he tyring to make? Is it get the troops home. Is it that he represents a group when he says "we demand"? Just who is this we he refers to? Him and his bloated ego and yes man sycophants he hangs with.

I find Michael Moore quite entertaining.

Just heard evidence to back up what most already suspect about the Iraqi force that we're training. One of the guys that works for me just got back from Iraq. He says that on numerous occasions IEDs would explode no more than 100 yards from an Iraqi police checkpoint that the Iraqi police man 24 hours a day. Only two explanations for this....either the Iraqi police planted it themselves or they allow insurgents to place them without giving warning to U.S. forces. We can't trust the very people we're training...so whats the point?

Track12, did you bother to read the "letter?" If you did, you would realize that it is very negative (as is all of Michael Moore's writings) in regards to the Bush Administration. How on Earth you interpreted this as "propping up the Bush line" is beyond me.

That being said, the Iraq War is complex and any plan I could come up with would be insufficient. In short, I think the best thing to do is what we have been doing....training the Iraqi Army and Police to take over the security of the country. Once that is accomplished, then the focus can turn to reconstruction (which has been greatly inhibited due to the lack of security). Now, it's been well documented that a significant number in the Iraqi forces are either unwilling or unable to "stand up." Those who will not do so (for whatever reason) need to be purged from the ranks and the Iraqi government has to put its foot down and make such deriliction of duty a crime (spitballing on that). In short, there needs to be an Army and Police that has national interests, not sectarian. This will take a while, but it needs to be done whether we are there or not. Right now the main issue is getting the country secured. President Bush and other members of the Administration are working the phones and holding diplomatic meetings to try to get neighboring countries to help Iraq live on as a free, prosperous nation. This too will help.

As far as the Democrats having no plan...I stand by that. Sure, there are some that have put forth ideas (Senator Joe Biden, for example). But for the most part they are either calling for a commencement of withdrawal in about 4-6 months or are waiting for the Baker-Hamilton Study to come out. What they have failed to do collectively is come up with an alternate strategy to win the war. As always, if people have a better way I'm all ears. But President Bush is spot on when he says that he is open to any suggestions that will win the war...everything else is garbage.