George Bush and his brains trust are now deciding whether to send more troops to Iraq. John McCain and Senator Lieberman are all for sending upwards of 40,000. But the two senior generals in the Iraq theatre are resigning shortly because they are dead set against more troops. They argue and many with them (including Republicans) that sending more American will just result in more American deaths and will do nothing to quell the civil war raging along the Tigris. In view of the botch he has made of the war so far, should this kind of decision be left to Bush at all? After all Bush is desperately trying to put together a legacy. Willy nilly his legacy will rest on the outcome in Iraq. Would it be too cruel to suggest Bush’s true legacy will rest on the backs of dead American soldiers? The word inside the Beltway is that many even in the White House feel the war has been lost. At this stage of the Fiasco is there a single cogent argument for sending more troops?
RSS Feed for this entry