« Choose Wisely | Main | Pelosi Tattles on Cheney »
February 21, 2007
Iraq: More Troops Good - Less Troops Also Good
On Aug 14, 2004 President Bush told a group representing small businesses, "I want your child home as quickly as possible. But we must not send mixed signals. We must stay the course until the job is done. The other day, my opponent said in the heat of political -- in the heat of the political arena, said, well, they'll -- if I'm elected, they'll be -- the troops will be substantially reduced in six months. That's a bad signal to send.... it not only affects the thinking of the enemy, it also affects the thinking of allies."
Now contrast that with this: "Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq in the coming months and aims to further cut its 7,100-strong contingent by late summer if Iraqi forces can secure the country's south, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday. The announcement, which came as Denmark said it would
withdraw its 460 troops and Lithuania said it was considering pulling out its small contingent, comes as the U.S. is implementing an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq.
Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney called this phased withdrawal by coalition forces good news. “I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,” Cheney told ABC News while in Tokyo. The bad news is, the White is telling us we need to send more 21,000 more troops to Iraq to quell the growing sectarian violence that is spreading everywhere except in Kurdish controlled areas.
Bush has admitted he underestimated the Iraqis willingness to assume control and this has resulted in numerous delays on many levels. While the White House and the Pentagon making serious blunders in Iraq, Iran was busy sending military advisors and deadly bombs to aide the insurgency and kill our soldiers. Iran is doing this now with total impunity because they are pretty well assured they will not face any military consequences. In essence they have "mean mugged" the USA and they got away with it and now they've taken it to the next level of direct military involvement. Our response is a tepid protest to the UN about their involvement.
No amount of spin can convince me that Washington is not on an opposite track as its main coalition allies and that is troubling, to put it mildly.
As we can probably all recall, whenever President Bush was pressed for a timeline of withdrawal in Iraq he has told us and the Iraqi people, "We will be here for as long as it takes...". He's said this over and over, increasingly to the chagrin of more and more Iraqis. This is probably the last thing Iraqi's wanted to hear as the US was looking more each month like occupiers than liberators.
Polls currently show that a majority of Iraqi's want the U.S. out: "A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers. In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling. Nearly three-quarters of residents in one poll said they would feel safer if U.S.-led troops left Iraq. Some Iraqis say they believe the U.S. presence has fueled sectarian warfare."
Bush's policy making in Iraq is limited by his term in office and that means from the time he started making promises to, "stay for however long it may take", he actually had about 3 1/2 years before another administration would re-evaluate his policies. "We will stay the course until the job is done, however long it may take...", is looking more like a fairy tale than a promise .
Considering all this, we're supposed to think it's "good news" that the UK is in a phased withdrawal and is going to be out of Iraq by 2008.
Posted by Post Scripts at February 21, 2007 11:59 AM
Comments
Blair said he is withdrawing soldiers from Basra because it can be controlled by Iraqis now. I heard the Iraqis in this area are Shias and if they are how do they get along with Iranians? I heard good enough to let things slip in. Rather than send those British soldiers home why aren't they being used to help Americans secure Bagdad where all the trouble is? Something isn't right here and I don't think President Bush is being totally honest with us when he says the Brits leaving is a good thing.
Posted by: BobL1342 at February 21, 2007 06:58 PM
Blair has been positioning himself for this move for more than a year...he's gone all wobbly on us.
The Aussies in power are still on board, and are quite possibly the most sensible folks on earth at the moment. The Australian reported today HERE and HERE that they plan to stick with Bush and will also send more troops and equipment to Afghanistan. They see the larger view that we must defeat terrorism as we had to defeat Nazism.
Mr Rudd said Labor had been a consistent supporter of the war in Afghanistan over the past five years because of its role in global terrorism.***"Our support for the war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan is based on the fact that we've seen terrorists who have killed our people in Bali, who were trained in Afghanistan," Mr Rudd said.***
"We see in Afghanistan, narco-finance arising from the opium crop which funds global terrorism, and Osama bin Laden remains alive and well in and around Afghanistan five years after September 11.'***"For those reasons we've always taken a positive and constructive bipartisan approach to reasonable requests from Mr Howard for our troop deployment in Afghanistan, and we'll continue to adopt that positive bipartisan approach."
...John Howard, who on Monday announced plans to send another 70 army instructors to Iraq, said yesterday the British Government's phase-down would not affect Australia's military commitment to Iraq.***"The reason I understand Mr Blair will give is that conditions have stabilised in Basra so that there can be this decision taken," the Prime Minister said.***
"They will still have 5000 (troops) and we will (have) 550.
The strong and steady message from Howard, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Nelson is that the coalition cannot afford to lose in Iraq.
I guess if Bush is delusional he's not alone in it. Personally, I see all of the political people who once were "for the war" and now have "wobbled" (that is such a good word!)as the ones who should hang their heads in shame. They are creating "Vietnam" all over again alright, and will never bother to take responsibility for the consequences, much less notice them. What else can we expect from people who believe in their hearts that Woodstock was their finest youthful achievement.
Whatever happens in this worldwide political gameshow and drama there is one remaining constant that no one can truthfully deny. Our troops are performing incredibly...they deserve better from those who put on the mantle of leadership and who, when things get tough or when it is politically expedient, become spineless wafflers and a*s kissers.
Posted by: Tina at February 21, 2007 11:13 PM