Iraq and Afghanistan don't need US troops for security. They can ask the UN if they want help

hyperlinks and video live at source:

One of the arguments for US troops to remain in the two countries we invaded is that even if our wars were mistakes, it’s our duty to stay until those countries can manage their own security. If US troops leave, we’ll subject civilians to escalating violence.

As eminent Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt distinguished in his 2005 Bestseller as a strictly academic term, that rhetoric is bullshit.

When political “leadership” makes that argument, it’s a lie of omission. Without the comprehensive information that Iraq and Afghanistan have full authority within their governments to make that determination for themselves, that statement is misleading Americans into thinking that US security is their only option. It is not.

Those nations’ governments can request security assistance from the UN if they conclude their own governments require assistance. It’s not the US’ position to make that call, unless we’re an invading empire only giving propaganda that Iraq and Afghanistan’s elections empower them to determine that themselves. If so, it wouldn't be the first time that the US has installed puppet governments in the Middle East to do our bidding. As I hope you know, the CIA through Operation Ajax overthrew a democratically-elected Iranian government in 1953 and installed a US-friendly dictator. While this information used to considered "conspiracy theory," it is now conservative history. According to testimony by US intelligence and diplomatic personnel, Saddam was a CIA asset put into power in Iraq. But I digress. Back to US political "leadership" not being clear that the countries where our troops are deployed have full authority to determine their own security needs.

Answer me this: the omission of this critical information is:
Unintentional because of ignorance of those countries ability to ask for help themselves.
Intentional because US political “leadership,” who say they represent the American public, feel this information is unimportant or they want the American people to not understand that option.
In addition, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the legal framework for US troop presence in Iraq, was created by Bush administration officials, NOT Congress. Given how much money is involved and the well-being of our troops, shouldn’t our elected representatives have the authority of policy, especially since this is an agreement between two nations otherwise known as a treaty? According to the Constitution, that was the intent. Was that decision of both parties’ “leadership” part of a strategy to keep Americans uniformed and non-participatory in this important policy? BTW, I remind you that ~25% of the Department of Defense budget is regularly “unaccounted” by their own reports. That is, a quarter of the money they receive from US taxpayers “disappears” with no account on record having received the money.

In law, we consider the character of the source of information to consider reliability of testimony. As hundreds of journalists have documented, the “leaders” of both parties have continuously lied through commission and omission to the public. My short version is here. I’ve written an entire brief here, and have broken it into several components among previous articles you’re welcome to find through browsing titles.

These are Wars of Aggression, if you care to understand the two simple laws to make an invasion legal. The US are acting as criminals against peace. The American public is collectively still too complacent to demand our government return to the limits of US law. The irony is that those still complicit in this deplorable chapter of US history understand the Founding Fathers’ advice that freedom only exists as long as we protect it.

Ironically, the Founders' advice is manipulated upon its head by implying our troops’ well-intended engagement in illegal wars is “protecting our freedom.”


Illegal Wars of Aggression attack others' freedom and destroys America's stand for real freedom. If we honored freedom, we'd let them be free by leaving and do something honorable like fulfill our commitment to end poverty by funding our promise of only 0.7% of our income rather than the token 0.16% we really give. But no, we'd rather cause the expected collateral deaths of all wars that now number over a million civilians and call it "liberation" and "bringing democracry." But no, we'd rather spend $3 to $5 TRILLION in long-term costs after saying the war would pay for itself. But no, politicians look you in the eye and say the strategy of war causes peace, and reject a Department of Peace contributing to policy. Our political-so-called leadership rejects policy to save a million children's preventable deaths from poverty every month when Americans WANT to fund this with up to 10% of our budget.

Because one of the US' most famous philosophers considers "bullshit" an appropriate academic term to describe politicians' statements designed to herd the public to believe their political agenda without consideration of all pertinant facts, you now have academic permission for it's use. You're welcome for this empowerment.

When will the American public have had enough? The following 5-minute video is among the top few I've ever seen to powerfully and artistically ask that question.

As always, please share this article with all who say they want to be responsible citizens. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking below the article title (it’s free).