It's absurd to assert that our soldiers are protecting land. So much of Iraq is already being bargained away and partitioned by the Iraqis themselves. If there ever is any new wealth to come from the embattled oil wells, it too will be dispersed beyond the ability of our forces to control it or its influence.
It make little sense to assert that our 133,000 strong force is defending the cabinet, its officers, and agents. How do bombings and search and destroy missions 100s of miles away from the seat of government keep these secure? Iraqi resentment of the tactics of our forces is swelling, and, so goes the resistance.
This week the justification for our occupation imperceptibly shifted from defense of democracy (elections), to the open preservation of the U.S. stake and interest in the Iraqi government.
The new edict was hidden in an Orwellian announcement which, on its face, looked like a halt in the recent escalation of troops to Iraq, but was, in reality, a sly forecast of the desire for the introduction of more.
"I constantly evaluate the situation," Gen. George Casey said in a Fox interview. "And if I think I need more, I'll ask more. If I think I need less, I'll tell the president that I need less."
More troops is apparently what the Bush regime is leaning to. "Right now we're not planning on it," the general qualified, "but it's possible."
Victory in Iraq will come only when the country "can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself," Bush said in a news conference after the killing of al-Zarqawi by coalition forces.
Bush wants us to believe the troops will be pulled out as soon as possible, "But the definition of 'as soon as possible' is depending upon victory in Iraq," he said. "We're making progress toward that goal."
Bush's equation for troops in Iraq goes like this: More violence = need for more troops. With that prescription, we should leave Iraq by . . . never. Iraq's forces will always be challenged by militarized resistance, even more so, aligned with our aggravating forces. Bush will never get enough soldiers to Iraq which would effect the type of crushing oppression needed to cow a country its size. The best he/we can hope for as he lopes our soldiers along, is an artificial prop of a lofty junta.
How far removed these 'elected' and appointed must seem to the populace from their needs and concerns. Their quiet voices are further silenced by the noises of the ongoing war.
The first and most pressing initiative the new prime minister could come up with this week was, of course, more military muckraking in the provinces. That should inspire a type of allegiance to the new regime that would make Saddam proud. I wonder how many Iraqis who voted his new regime into power will be caught in the crossfire and round-up of 'insurgents'?
How sanguine our nation's soldiers must feel about their own muckraking mission now that they've finally managed to find an actual insurgent they could show off Usay/Uday style to assuage any American guilt over the innocent men, women, and children who were the 'collateral and deliberate casualties of their contrived aggression.
Zarqawi's killing enables our soldiers their own rationalizations for their actions that have been allowed for generations for those whose job it is to kill in defense of our nation. But, to accept that association, they must also bear the complicity of their compatriots' misdeeds. If they are responsible for some glories that they perceive from this war, then they are responsible for the tragedies as well.
As for the leaders who flail our soldiers against the Iraqis, there is only blame as their cultivation of the war causes their influence and power to grow with every increase in aggression, and to wane as the conflict lessens.
There's nothing left for the tyrants as they gather in the comfort of the presidential retreat this week to line our soldiers up like matchsticks for a future flame, except to juggle their ambitions for a permanent occupation of Iraq with their delusions of some victory materializing out of their bloody misadventure. They can't have both. Either Iraq is a persistent failure, or it's a victory they should be able to confidently walk away from.
In the meantime, I expect they'll just decide to bull through in a swaggering attempt to conquer the Iraqi resistance in the buoyant wake of the killing of their named nemesis; gathering up more kindling for their flame to appease the smoldering silence.
It make little sense to assert that our 133,000 strong force is defending the cabinet, its officers, and agents. How do bombings and search and destroy missions 100s of miles away from the seat of government keep these secure? Iraqi resentment of the tactics of our forces is swelling, and, so goes the resistance.
This week the justification for our occupation imperceptibly shifted from defense of democracy (elections), to the open preservation of the U.S. stake and interest in the Iraqi government.
The new edict was hidden in an Orwellian announcement which, on its face, looked like a halt in the recent escalation of troops to Iraq, but was, in reality, a sly forecast of the desire for the introduction of more.
More troops is apparently what the Bush regime is leaning to. "Right now we're not planning on it," the general qualified, "but it's possible."
Victory in Iraq will come only when the country "can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself," Bush said in a news conference after the killing of al-Zarqawi by coalition forces.
Bush wants us to believe the troops will be pulled out as soon as possible, "But the definition of 'as soon as possible' is depending upon victory in Iraq," he said. "We're making progress toward that goal."
Bush's equation for troops in Iraq goes like this: More violence = need for more troops. With that prescription, we should leave Iraq by . . . never. Iraq's forces will always be challenged by militarized resistance, even more so, aligned with our aggravating forces. Bush will never get enough soldiers to Iraq which would effect the type of crushing oppression needed to cow a country its size. The best he/we can hope for as he lopes our soldiers along, is an artificial prop of a lofty junta.
How far removed these 'elected' and appointed must seem to the populace from their needs and concerns. Their quiet voices are further silenced by the noises of the ongoing war.
The first and most pressing initiative the new prime minister could come up with this week was, of course, more military muckraking in the provinces. That should inspire a type of allegiance to the new regime that would make Saddam proud. I wonder how many Iraqis who voted his new regime into power will be caught in the crossfire and round-up of 'insurgents'?
How sanguine our nation's soldiers must feel about their own muckraking mission now that they've finally managed to find an actual insurgent they could show off Usay/Uday style to assuage any American guilt over the innocent men, women, and children who were the 'collateral and deliberate casualties of their contrived aggression.
Zarqawi's killing enables our soldiers their own rationalizations for their actions that have been allowed for generations for those whose job it is to kill in defense of our nation. But, to accept that association, they must also bear the complicity of their compatriots' misdeeds. If they are responsible for some glories that they perceive from this war, then they are responsible for the tragedies as well.
As for the leaders who flail our soldiers against the Iraqis, there is only blame as their cultivation of the war causes their influence and power to grow with every increase in aggression, and to wane as the conflict lessens.
There's nothing left for the tyrants as they gather in the comfort of the presidential retreat this week to line our soldiers up like matchsticks for a future flame, except to juggle their ambitions for a permanent occupation of Iraq with their delusions of some victory materializing out of their bloody misadventure. They can't have both. Either Iraq is a persistent failure, or it's a victory they should be able to confidently walk away from.
In the meantime, I expect they'll just decide to bull through in a swaggering attempt to conquer the Iraqi resistance in the buoyant wake of the killing of their named nemesis; gathering up more kindling for their flame to appease the smoldering silence.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
