The U.S. will not win the war in Iraq
When the President announces his proposal to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, viewers should remember that currently we have roughly 132,000 troops in Iraq, 28,000 less than the 160,000 troops in 2005. This new "surge" in troops merely brings us back to pretty much the same troop levels we had in 2005 - when we were losing the war in Iraq.
In addition to this troop surge, Bush is expected to announce a one billion US dollar aid package to Iraq to create jobs and "boost" the economy. All I can say is "what economy?" I suspect this one billion dollars is actually meant to start oil production since the country has no economy to speak of. Meanwhile funding for the troop surge will cost several billion dollars on top of the more than 350 billion dollars the U.S. has already spent.
I do not see this passing Congress, but maybe that’s what the President wants, if Congress cuts off funding than Bush can throw his hands up in the air and say, "Look folks, I tried to fix it but the Democrats wouldn’t let me." That, or he still has not figured out that no number of "Our Fathers’" is going to turn Iraq into a stable democracy.
Then again, what does the President care? He just needs to make it through the next year and then it’s someone else’s problem.
whereIstand Tags
January 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
It’s a "punt" strategy, not a surge. Shame on McCain to support this bullshit. It’s not a winning strategy and everyone knows that, yet more of our troops are going to get picked off because two groups of people hate each other because of religion. This is a strategy to not lose until Bush leaves office and then his successor will have to make the tough concession and redeploy. There’s no reason we should not redeploy most of our troops to the north to protect the Kurds and keep a lighter force to support the new Iraqi army around the central government. But is it even worth supporting a central government that’s in bed with Iran. Where do you think Maliki was in exile when Saddam was in power? If we go after Sadr and the militia then we’re completely fighting three enemies in one country, the sunnis, shiites and foreign jihadists.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
You know, Jacki and Brian…
You have been fed liberal bull crap for so long that you can’t even comprehend what is going on. Do you even have a clue? You know… I’m beyond asking, "Do you think you can do better?" I’m to the point now that I’ll flat tell ya. You can’t do any better!
You, my friends, will never know what it is like to be wartime president. You will never understand what it means to be the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world and to have your own citizens take you out at the knees. You’ll never grasp the pressure that you feel when you know that the US has not had a decisive wartime victory in 60 years, there is a religio-ethnic revolution occurring in the countries of every major ally you have, there are several regimes that care only for your annihilation, and your people will not agree with you no matter what you do.
What do you do in those kind of situations? You do the right thing. It is all you have left.
If you haven’t noticed, the President took every piece of advice he was given and developed a strategy that may actually work. It wasn’t just the republicans saying increase the troops!! It was a necessary move. And more importantly, the troops needed the permission, regardless of the politcal bull, to do what is necessary to win. Well, they got it. No more pussy-footing around Iran and Syria and the Eurabian windbags…
Don’t pretend to be war strategists. You’re not.
PS The average salary of an Iraqi worker is more than double what it was before the war. What economy indeed…