OpEdNews Op Eds

20,000 Troops and the Speech

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message James Brett     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 215
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)
- Advertisement -
George Bush was not Cicero, as Olbermann suggested beforehand that he might have to be, and he was not Lincoln at Gettysburg.  He was not happy, nor was he visibly shaken or worried looking.  He looked tired and his teeth appeared to be set.

George was consistent.  He was consistent with the essential purpose of this adventure of his, this departure from the pursuit of a bin Laden needle in the mountainous haystacks of Afghanistan and Pakistan ... a pursuit that was righteous and politically necessary, but which only with amazing good luck could have produced success.  George was, as this observer has observed, fully and fiercely involved in the middle east, AS IF it were his to reassemble any way he wants.  The consistency was Neocon consistency. But, the point of the speech was to explain to a weary populace that 21,500 additional troops in Iraq will make a difference.  Actually, folks, he did not say that.  He said that he has told Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq that he has to step up to the plate and drive in a run.  He said that U.S. troops will "embed" with the Iraqis to assist them to clean up their own mess.  He said that this gesture on the part of the U.S. should not be seen as an open commitment, yet everyone knows that Bush does not plan to EVER remove U.S. troops from Iraq ... else why build permanent bases.

Politically, Bush gave himself several ways out tonight.  His charge to Maliki will almost certainly not be fulfilled.  Bush did not state what the benchmarks of success might be, by the way, but it will be apparent even amid all the bloodshed Bush predicted whether or not Maliki will move to end the sectarian violence.  Failure of the Iraqis will be Bush's first line of defense against political forces at home.

(The ensuing debate in Congress would do well, therefore, to address the problem of metrics for Iraqi success—additional troops or not!)

Bush also gave himself another way out as well.  He said that the additional carrier task group now deployed to the region would be insuring ... as best aircraft carriers are able to deal with land-based insurgency supply lines (remember the Ho Chi Minh Trail, folks!) ... that Iran and Syria do not increase the mischief they are already guilty of.  Chris and Keith at MSNBC were so taken with the emphasis Bush put on this that they saw a new front in the war open up tonight.  This observer has been predicting this for months and months.

Iran and Syria are a political way out for George.  His stock is so low right now, he will be tarred and feathered if he attempts to bomb the supply lines within Iran or Syria without a "Pearl Harbor" type of provocation.  Bush's manipulation of intelligence and the press now comes all the way around to bite him.  If he had played it more subtly he might have made do with something less than a "Pearl Harbor."  Assad and Ahmani-Nejad both know that George is hoist on his own petard, so they will supply and rearm the insurgents with impunity, and this becomes Bush's way out.  Hogtied by his own bellicose prevarications, he will claim the Iranians as the evil force in the region and present the 2008 Presidential election campaigns with an ugly choice: Iran as hegemon in the middle east or American action against Iran, despite the opprobrium and hatred from Islam that it will bring.

Democrats will do well to pounce on the benchmarks issue and to let the opportunity to augment the troops pass.  Putting this in the hands of the Iraqi government by insisting on hard compromises among Iraqis is the only way.  Americans have to stop being "enablers" to the ancient problems of these people.  Iraqis will scratch out a hopeful government pointed in the right direction ... or not.  It is theirs to decide.

JB

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

James R. Brett, Ph.D. taught Russian History before (and during) long stint as an academic administrator in faculty research administration. His academic interests are the modern period of Russian History since Peter the Great, Chinese History, (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Economy v. Ecology

VP Debate: One Gigantic Mistake by Sarah Palin ... Huge!

Tell It Like It Is

Capitalism, Fascism, and Socialism

The Meaning of the Mike Connell Story: Under the Bus

Sack Rahm