Monday
04Jul2005
Trust me....
Monday, July 4, 2005 at 11:28AM
President Bush thinks the British and American public should show resolve and trust his handling of the insurgency. Should we? With no new strategy or direction the public is increasingly rejecting his policies. He seems to believe Europeans who criticize him do not understand what it takes to defeat terroism.
Did we not have terrorism before the ME? Did British forces not face regular attacks on the Empire? European's have had centuries to learn the follies that America is now beginning to understand. The French, the Belgians, the Dutch, us British, and even the Spanish in South America faced insurgencies. So can the American’s forgive our caution when we question the aggression of our leaders?
We understand the imperial aggression is rarely without mass bloodshed. Bush is blurring the lines between pre-war Iraq and terrorism. Saddam was on the wane and the Iraqi military and leadership had no intention of allowing Uday to run the country. Saddam was being coy about WMD because his internal power depended on it. Our governments did lie. Blair embellished the MI6 reports -this much we know- and we also know non-intelligence personnel (like our good friend Mr. Bolton) applied pressure to CIA staff to build the case for war.
And yes Iraq IS a quagmire. There is no doubt. You were far safer in Saigon than you would be in today's Baghdad, the US military has said as much. So what now? Firstly Bush must admit that the policy is not working, and get more troops into the region, this is blindingly clear. Bush says that his generals on the ground do not require additional troops, this is rubbish. Rumsfeld has garnered a compliant and ineffective military command that daily tell the Whitehouse what they want to hear. Gen. John Riggs was demoted to a two-star general when he made statements requesting more troops public. Former Army no.2 John M Keane whose private memo to Riggs was used against the general, wrote of the incident:-
"It is outrageous that John Riggs was reduced in rank for such a minor offense, which should never outweigh his 30-plus years of exemplary service to the Army and the nation,"
Rumsfeld is quick to punish those who try to save lives.
Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army's top officer, also stated his fear that current levels of troops are adding to the crisis at his retirement in 2003 with the claim: -
"our soldiers and families bear the risk and hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds the force capabilities we can sustain."
So the top Army officials are asking for more troops after all.
Neither Rumsfeld nor any of his senior staff felt the need to attend Shinseki’s retirement ceremony, in a sign of disrespect much like the automatic signature on the letters to the grief sicken families whose loved ones have perished, Rumsfeld made it clear he cares not for the people who carry out his misguided orders.
So there are two conundrums facing us, one is holding our elected leaders to account for their warmongering, and the second is addressing the violence in Iraq. American marines have proven effective in gaining control of cities and towns however the problem is maintaining security; the insurgencies knows that a nomadic strategy will always outfox an army with limited numbers. So I’m not advocating withdrawal, far from it, I am imploring that the president commit the resources necessary to get the job done and the get the troops home safely.
All Bush needs is a little humility….pity.
Did we not have terrorism before the ME? Did British forces not face regular attacks on the Empire? European's have had centuries to learn the follies that America is now beginning to understand. The French, the Belgians, the Dutch, us British, and even the Spanish in South America faced insurgencies. So can the American’s forgive our caution when we question the aggression of our leaders?
We understand the imperial aggression is rarely without mass bloodshed. Bush is blurring the lines between pre-war Iraq and terrorism. Saddam was on the wane and the Iraqi military and leadership had no intention of allowing Uday to run the country. Saddam was being coy about WMD because his internal power depended on it. Our governments did lie. Blair embellished the MI6 reports -this much we know- and we also know non-intelligence personnel (like our good friend Mr. Bolton) applied pressure to CIA staff to build the case for war.
And yes Iraq IS a quagmire. There is no doubt. You were far safer in Saigon than you would be in today's Baghdad, the US military has said as much. So what now? Firstly Bush must admit that the policy is not working, and get more troops into the region, this is blindingly clear. Bush says that his generals on the ground do not require additional troops, this is rubbish. Rumsfeld has garnered a compliant and ineffective military command that daily tell the Whitehouse what they want to hear. Gen. John Riggs was demoted to a two-star general when he made statements requesting more troops public. Former Army no.2 John M Keane whose private memo to Riggs was used against the general, wrote of the incident:-
"It is outrageous that John Riggs was reduced in rank for such a minor offense, which should never outweigh his 30-plus years of exemplary service to the Army and the nation,"
Rumsfeld is quick to punish those who try to save lives.
Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army's top officer, also stated his fear that current levels of troops are adding to the crisis at his retirement in 2003 with the claim: -
"our soldiers and families bear the risk and hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds the force capabilities we can sustain."
So the top Army officials are asking for more troops after all.
Neither Rumsfeld nor any of his senior staff felt the need to attend Shinseki’s retirement ceremony, in a sign of disrespect much like the automatic signature on the letters to the grief sicken families whose loved ones have perished, Rumsfeld made it clear he cares not for the people who carry out his misguided orders.
So there are two conundrums facing us, one is holding our elected leaders to account for their warmongering, and the second is addressing the violence in Iraq. American marines have proven effective in gaining control of cities and towns however the problem is maintaining security; the insurgencies knows that a nomadic strategy will always outfox an army with limited numbers. So I’m not advocating withdrawal, far from it, I am imploring that the president commit the resources necessary to get the job done and the get the troops home safely.
All Bush needs is a little humility….pity.
Reader Comments