Bush Wants More Troops
Pardon me while I rant…
CNN reports: Bush: More troops needed for ‘long struggle’
The White House is considering an expansion of the U.S. Army and Marines for “the long struggle against radicals and extremists,” President Bush said during a Wednesday news conference.
Bush would not elaborate on where that struggle would take place, only that he wanted to ensure that the U.S. military “stays in the fight for a long period of time.”
It’s important that the U.S. military stays in the fight for a long time. This benefits the war profiteers, and the Military Industrial Complex that has a grip on congress.
“I’m not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it’s going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate,” he said.
I’m predicting Iran will be the new theater, and I predict, like most junkies, it will take crashing in a big way to get President Bush and the rest of the nation to check into war-withdrawal rehab.
The president has asked new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who visited military commanders in Iraq on Wednesday, to report back on how to expand the military.
This sounds like a junkie going to the doctor and asking how to get more pills, when the real question should be, “Do I really need more pills?” Bush won’t ask if we really need more troops, because he doesn’t want to hear “no” for an answer.
“We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources. We can ask more of our Iraqi partners, and we will,” Bush said. “I believe that we’re going to win. I believe that. And by the way, if I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t have our troops there.”
Most gamblers who lose the farm think they’re going to win right before they bet the farm. After following Bush through disaster after disaster, 70% of the people he represents doesn’t give a rat’s ass what he thinks. For chrisake, we want somebody else to do the thinking for a change.
Bush said that if the Iraqis “stand up, step up and lead,” then the U.S. military can help them achieve victory there.
If, if, if… If Bush hadn’t lied the country into a war (and he didn’t deceive all of us…just enough of us…) then the U.S. military wouldn’t need another nation’s forces to step up and lead in order to achieve victory. I think it’s rotten that the United States is dependent on a bunch of fledgling Iraqi troops for victory in the most important war of the current generation. Is this what the highest-priced $500-billion-a-year military in the world has come to? If a country can’t win a war with the best military in the world, maybe its fighting the wrong war.
“It’s their responsibility to govern their country. It’s their responsibility to do the hard work necessary to secure Baghdad. And we want to help them.”
He got the first two sentences in the paragraph right. I’d replace the last one with, “And we want to help them give us their oil.”
The president also acknowledged that the securing of Iraq is made more difficult by the insurgent and sectarian violence there, but he insisted that the United States would not be pushed out of the region.
Translation: lucky contractors are already at work on four military superbases and the largest embassy on the planet.
“I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can’t run us out of the Middle East — that they can’t intimidate America,” he said. “They think they can. They think it’s just a matter of time before America grows weary and leaves, abandons the people of Iraq, for example. And that’s not going to happen.”
Translation: the USA is now a dictatorship and I’m the decider. If I choose to jump off a cliff, the whole country will follow me.
Bush rejected the idea that expanding the size of the military would contradict former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s calls for “a lighter, agile Army,” saying that he was more concerned about “increasing end strength” for the Army and Marines.
Bush also rejected the idea that turning left was the opposite of turning right, saying that he was more concerned with spinning counterclockwise.
Asked if he would overrule his own military commanders if they opposed a plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, Bush called the question a “dangerous hypothetical.”
Translation: I told them how to answer before I asked the question. If they surprise me it will be dangerous…for them.
Bush said he understands that the American people are troubled by the violence, but he emphasized that victory is still achievable in Iraq.
And it’s possible to win the lottery…by the way, can you spot me some more cash so I can buy another ticket? When I win, I’ll split it with you. This is the last time I’ll ask, I promise.
“I also don’t believe most Americans want us just to get out now,” he said. “A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States.”
Most people didn’t want to leave the Titanic either, but at some point there’s no other rational choice.
However, the president said, he will not propose sending more troops to Iraq without a clear purpose. “There’s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before, you know, I agree on that strategy,” he said.
Translation: I’ll come up with, you know, some excuse…just give me time.
Bush’s remarks came as he appeared to say for the first time that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq, adopting the view of Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bush told The Washington Post in Wednesday’s editions, “I think an interesting construct that Gen. Pace uses is, ‘We’re not winning, we’re not losing.’ “
Translation: We’re in a stalemate that costs $200 million per day. Yeah, I don’t see why we can’t keep this up forever. Why not…
Bush has said he will reveal a new strategy for Iraq next month after considering the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and consulting with Pentagon officials and others.
Next month, after another 70 troops are dead…what’s the rush indeed.
To show that making that decision is his most urgent priority, Bush hosted a Hanukkah Reception and gave a speech about improving the postal service.
Read More: iraq war, military, bush, bush administration, middle east
Related Articles
Can’t we just impeach him before he breaks the entire military? If he continues down this path of going against everything the people on the ground tell him, Bush will get even more people killed.
PoliticalCritic: I agree. While impeachment may consume precious time and energy on Capitol Hill, letting Bush go unpunished may result in…well, in him acting like an unpunished teenager with the keys to the family car and his daddy’s credit card. Not only would impeachment put a halt to Bush’s rampant assault on the U.S. Constitution, but it would also stand as a much-needed caution to those Democrats who would follow in Bush’s warmongering footsteps after filling the vacuum he leaves behind (Hillary, Lieberman, etc.)
P.S. Thanks for dropping by! And for other readers, be sure to check out PoliticalCritic’s excellent take on Bush’s “more troops” request here: Listen to the Generals.
This year has been a sureal experience. I’ve tried to round it up in my blog. More troops? *deep breath* I’m going to read a good book or something. At least this will shut McCain up.