Whether for or against, the U.S. will be sending in an additional 20,000 to 30,000 troops shortly into war torn Iraq, and chiefly into Baghdad itself. This will be accomplished by accelerating the deployment of some troops, along with extending all others stays of service.
Obviously this will cause a short term improvement, and reduction in the violence that continues, and continues to escalate since day one. For years now, Bush has indicated that he would only increase the number of troops in Iraq if the military commanders asked for them. They have not. This is the primary result of the urging of Bush's new advisors (his old ones have left with their tails between their legs), neo-cons Kagan (West Point) and Keane (former Army vice chief of staff). This is not the first "surge" we have tried. "Operation Forward Together" failed miserably in October.
How is this being treated on the hill? Even Lugar and Spector aren't jumping on the neo-con bandwagon, and Chuck Hagel has been quoted in Time as saying, "It's a surge-folly". What ever your take on the surge, it is obviously the last stand of a President desperate to right a sinking political ship, and save the historic impression / legacy, that his Presidency was unique in its complete inaptitude.
The only questions remain...Who will leave first...The troops in Iraq, or George from the Oval Office? Of course it will be George, then this entire mess he has created will be someone else's problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
No matter how it's resolved, the mess in Iraq and the complete failure of the current administration to properly lead will leave an ugly scare. Today as free countries are skeptical, what will become of our children who will inherit the costs?
Radar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wOzCkWN5g&mode=related&search=
Post a Comment