Can we trust Bush's opptomistic talk of withdraws?

In light of recent events concerning the war in Iraq, I want to write on the President’s hopeful address to the nation of a possible troop withdrawl, which may not be so hopeful. Ironically, or maybe not so ironically given the common criticism of irony within the President’s statements and decisions, his recent response to Security General Petraeus’s congressional testimony seems to contradict current events in the Middle East.

The President made claims of progress since the surge of 30,000 troops deployed from January until June 2007. While violence may seemingly be subsiding in Baghdad, violent struggles between extremist tribes throughout other regions in the country not only continue, but seem to be increasing. A suicide bombing in the Yazidi providence on Aug. 14 was the deadliest bombing since the U.S. declaration of war in 2002.

Yet while multiple progress reports have been filed and two major congressional testimonies from General Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the President has optimistically announced Sunni success and therefore greater security in the region of Baghdad. These reports allowed Bush to allude to the idea of allowing some troops to be sent home. An optimistic claim could give a little over 5,000 families the holiday season they wouldn’t have even thought to ask for.

While Bush made this announcement during a secret sneak eight-hour visit to the Anbar Province, once one of the most violently dangerous regions in Iraq, he was trying to prove his optimism with his actions. Yet, despite a hint at talk of withdrawals, the President is still supporting a continuation of the troop surge in Congress.

Throughout the world, leaders have lost respect and denied support for the U.S. based on the extended occupation of Iraq, just as many Americans have.

But the question I ask now is if so many truly do not support this war, why are we still occupying Iraq? I have never supported this war, but the reality is that we have been a part of dismembering any resemblance of political leadership and stability and now have taken a serious interest in the “safety and security” of the Iraqi people, or at least their oil. But it’s no use arguing whether we should have invaded Iraq. We did. Period. So the question is what now? Is it reasonable to believe that the President will keep his word and begin to send troops home?

Even Osama Bin Lauden, who resurfaced to make an address on the sixth anniversary of Sept. 11, says it plainly. “People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment. Here is the first of the matter: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?”

It’s terrifying, but Osama Bin Lauden just stated my argument for me.

I wish I could say the President’s visit to Iraq and hint of a withdraw is a positive step in US international relations and I wish I could believe that he is taking steps to begin a withdrawal. Unfortunately I am continually disappointed with actions that fail to support the words that so often proceed from our President’s mouth. My realistic realism tells me not to get my hopes up.