IRAQ

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?

2 Comments »

  1. 1
    Cate McB Says:

    No, I don’t think there is a single cogent argument for sending in more troops. For further interesting opinions, see the Editorial entitled, “The Imperial Presidency 2.0” in today’s
    NY Times (January 7, 2007). Cate McB

  2. 2
    Trouffel Says:

    Maybe the problem lies with the expression “War in Iraq”. We are being given the impression that this region is unstable and unpredictable and yet other areas of the mid-east utilise foreigners in a positive way, including US and European workers. Their skills, technology and know-how are valued to contribute creatively and constructively. Somewhere in what now seems like the misty past, the US (maybe in retrospect reluctantly) were forced to include the so called reconstruction of Iraq in their mandate for a (unwise) military invasion. This of course was never prioritised and was rapidly occluded by the escalating spiral of violence. At the end of the day you reap what you sew. You march into a country with military force, you will invite war. Iraq needed and still needs help. Iraq needed an invasion, Iraq still needs more help from the West but not more soldiers. Its simply a matter of action and reaction that if you increase the military presence you will increase the insurgent (whatever that is) response. The answer is surely to increase the number of construction firms, engineers, commercial investors. The roots of this insurgent war lie at street level. As long as quality of life is poor and the US offer only tanks and helicopters, then this WILL go on.


RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: