Burnt Orange Report
News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
|
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
 |
 |
December 01, 2004US Increasing Iraq Troops by 12,000By Andrew DobbsBrig. Gen. David Rodriquez, deputy operations director of the Joint Staff, told reporters that these moves would increase the size of the American force in Iraq from 138,000 today to about 150,000 by January. That is the highest number of U.S. troops in Iraq since the invasion, he said. By May 2003, when President Bush declared major combat operations over, there were about 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, he said. (...) Military officials have said repeatedly in recent weeks that they were considering whether more American troops would be required to provide sufficient security before Iraqis vote. The moves announced Wednesday are in line with expectations — a combination of holding some troops in Iraq longer than scheduled and sending some fresh forces from the United States. Unfortunately for our soldiers already over there, the bulk of the increase comes from simply extending the combat tours of 10,400 troops. The good news is that is seems that Bush is finally going to fight to win. We probably need more than 12,000 troops, but it is a good start. These elections in Iraq are of incredibly high importance. If a government chosen by the people of that desperate country can come into power, the arguments of terrorist insurgents that the whole thing is nothing but colonial exploitation will whither in the wind. If they can establish a stable democracy, it will be a powerful example to other Arab dictatorships. The only evidence you need for how important these elections are for an American victory is the level of intensity our enemies are showing against the effort. They know their goose is more or less cooked if they go off without a hitch and without a stable base of operations, the loss of hundreds- if not thousands- of their comrades and the seizure of a large chunk of their weapons they are on their last leg. By this time next year things could be completely different if this is successful. But victory will only come if we invest in more troops to train an Iraqi military, to secure the country in their absence and to defeat the fascist insurgency that threatens to throw Iraq back into the hellhole of oppression. 12,000 troops is a solid start, we need to keep the trend going until Iraq has a stable professional army, an effective police and domestic security force, a freely elected government, the beginnings of an economic/infrastructure redevelopment and a defeated or incredibly weak insurgency. We've succeeded in this sort of thing before and if we show the courage to do it again, we'll have a huge feather in our caps that we will celebrate for generations. Posted by Andrew Dobbs at December 1, 2004 05:07 PM | TrackBackComments
Are Andrew D's comments intended as irony? Should I read them as the voice of a Republican troll? Who is "we"? Who is occupying whose country? How will "victory" be measured, and what is the goal? Does this goal retroactively justify the original invasion? Are you saying "All's well that ends well"? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Are you ready to be drafted for the next Bushwar? Where are... I'm boggling. Posted by: Demo Memo at December 1, 2004 07:36 PMNo, it is not ironic. I suppose I'm old fashioned in that when my country is in a war, I don't cheer for them to lose- particularly when the other side is a loose transnational affiliation of psychotic fascists. We= the United States, the country that I live in and that I assume you do too. I know it might be hard for you to acknowledge the fact that you live in a great country, but try not to let your Chomsky-induced hatred for the US blind you completely. We are occupying the nation of Iraq until we can develop a stable (and democratic) government, military, economy and society in a country ravaged by a stalinist madman for 30 years. See above for how victory will be measured and what it entails. For that matter, read my post as I say it several times. Yes, this does justify the invasion, and the fact that Saddam Hussein was in violation of the ceasefire agreements, that he was collaborating with terrorists, that he posed a significant threat to the US and our allies and the fact that we believed him to be (and he might very well have been) developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the US or its allies. That answers your "all's well..." argument. And the fact that we don't know where the WMDs are frightens me. Perhaps our intelligence was wrong- that is very possible. But there is another, probably more likely, explanation that our intelligence made sense, that a whole host of experts- from the US, Europe and Asia (including people dead-set against the war)- looked over the intelligence and concluded that Saddam was developing WMDs and that they were right. Those WMDs could be sitting in Syria or Lebanon, could be in the hands of Baathists somewhere within Iraq or could have been distributed to an international sampling of anti-Western assholes. None of the options are pretty, and the sooner we stabalize Iraq, the sooner we can be ready to deal with any other wars that become necessary. That is why we need more troops now so we can get this phase of the War on Terror done with so we can move one to the next step until jihadist Islamofascism is relegated to the history books alongside Nazism and Communism. If my country asks me to serve, I will proudly do so. I would be willing to be drafted. I love my country, I love the values of this country and I believe they are worth fighting for. Saddam Hussein posed a significant threat to the perpetuation and ascendence of those values and now he doesn't. Sounds like a good day to me... Posted by: Andrew D at December 2, 2004 05:32 AMAndrew D: I thought the point of the Democrats running a candidate for President against George W. Bush was to oppose crazy foreign military adventures like the Iraq war that undermine both this country's moral authority and its fiscal health. If you accept Bush's justifications for that war, maybe you should be supporting the Republicans. Hmmmm. If you accept Bush's standard for pre-emptive war--that any dictator who is thinking about building weapons of mass destruction is fair game for invasion--then there will soon have to be more Bushwars. By this standard, Bush should have invaded Iran before Iraq. He should have invaded PAKISTAN before either one--they actually DO have a self-declared "Islamic bomb". Not only that--they are STILL hiding Osama bin Laden (remember him?) There is your real "Islamofascism". I don't have any more love for authoritarian, militaristic religions than you do. The difference between us is that I apply this standard equally to all sides. There is abundant Christianofascism in this country, including in our Dear Leader himself. The antidote to Islamofascism is not a War of Civilizations--it is leading by example towards a world of secular democracy. But regardless of whether the Bushit regime is malicious in its intent, its foreign policy is still monumentally stupid. If I wanted to cripple this country's ability to lead the world towards democracy, I couldn't think of a more effective wedge than Bushwars. Bush has really grabbed the tar baby this time. And he will have us all mired down with him as long as this regime and its militarism are in power. Posted by: Demo Memo at December 2, 2004 09:47 AMPost a comment
|
|
|
