December 20, 2006
"It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while." Bush
interview, Dec.19
"Ideological war," is what Bush called the Iraq occupation and his rhetorical "war on terror." An ideological war.
I wonder how many of those 3,000 soldiers who were killed in Iraq believed they were fighting an ideological war in Iraq? Their lives were needlessly squandered by Bush as he used them to force his own "ideology" on Iraqis with military force. Now Bush wants more soldiers to sacrifice for the mind games he's playing with anyone in the Mideast who's paying any attention.
They don't need more troops, they need to get their missions straight. There is no democracy in Iraq. The puppet government installed under the occupation of the invading army, propped up by our military forces, is a junta, not a "constitutional democracy" as Bush claims. Same as in Afghanistan. There is no evidence at all, outside of the compromised, original votes cast, that these country's citizens actually support the new regimes. In fact, many are under daily attack and suppression by the forces of the government they supposedly voted into power.
Also, the violence has conveniently compelled the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan to suspend citizens rights under their new constitutions. They are autocracies at best; brutal theocracies to those communities which actively oppose their propped-up regimes.
We are losing in Iraq and in Afghanistan because Bush, long ago, strayed from the intent of the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force days after 9-11, to wage his "ideological war" against any and all he defines as "enemies" and "terrorists." He's committed our nation to his "long war" which he wants future presidents to adopt; his illegitimate war child from his bloody binge abroad. And, he wants us to sponsor more by increasing the size of the military. More 'toy soldiers' for his war games.
Bush has yet to acknowledge that there is nothing in Iraq which can be "won" which will protect and preserve the democracy he so ignorantly assumes can emerge from under his heavy-handed tyranny. His sincerity in wanting and expecting a democracy to spring up in occupied Baghdad would be unbelievable even if Iraq was calm, and Iraqis were compliant to his violent imperialism.
But, Iraq is in revolt over the installation of yet another U.S. satellite regime, and it's all Bush can do to keep his imported exiles in their contrived positions of power long enough to put up another 'mission accomplished' banner, as Iraqis continue along the bloody path he marked for them three years ago with the overthrow of Saddam. Bush wanted Iraqi slaves to use as fodder as he lit fires in Iran and Syria's direction. Bush doesn't want the sectarian flames to burn out too quickly, lest he lose his leverage.
The rhetoric about "not losing, and, not winning," provides just enough fuel to keep the aggression simmering until he can find more kindling for his fire. No matter that he tried to preserve his republican legislative majority before the midterm elections by declaring that, "Absolutely, we're winning," in Iraq. Bush has retreated to the diverting hedge, the weaseling dodge. Fitting. He didn't really 'win' the last presidential election, but, he didn't really 'lose' either.
Our soldiers have been elected to throw themselves into Bush's cynical heap, and for his wonder, to burn. Three thousand lost aren't enough for him. He wants more. Congress can solve the problem of our overextended forces by pressuring Bush to lessen their manufactured commitments. It should be more than deflating to the parasites in the White House if they finally manage to get approval for an increased force, but, can't get permission (or funding) to muckrake around the world with them.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
