/*PenDragn: Headless Troops in Iraq.*/

9.23.2006

Headless Troops in Iraq.

No, not beheaded.

What is beheaded is the US military command.

Of course there are Bush, Cheney (the puppet CIC's master), and Rumsfeld, but er well that's my point and slyly the point of a WP editorial "The Troops Stay On"

Excerpts and comments:
Mr. Bush deserves some credit for being true to his word: He said that in deciding on troop reductions, he would be guided by conditions in the two countries and his commanders' recommendations rather than by the political calendar -- and he has been. The administration put this news out weeks before the election, even though the failure to bring troops home will add to the negative pull Iraq already exerts on Republicans in many congressional races.


Well , actually guys, not so much. He basically had to do this to use the spin that the Democrats were cut and runners and start the lies that Democrats wanted to leave now. In fact, the ones asking for the time table were the Iraqi Legislature, until the Bush administration got to them and made them delete that request from an important bill. That's "purple thumb democracy" for you. It seems like the Republicans in Congress have those same purple thumbs.

But we have to agree with the next paragraph:
The president's steadfastness would be much more impressive if it seemed to be attached to a winning strategy. Sadly, the events of the past several weeks suggest otherwise, at least in Iraq. Gen. Abizaid candidly described the progress of a U.S. military campaign in Baghdad, where additional American forces have been concentrated in the hope of stopping rampant sectarian bloodshed, as slight. Asked by reporters if the war could be won, he replied, "Given unlimited time and unlimited support, we're winning the war."

Whoa, bring in the infinite monkeys!

(and the Post article seems to note the irony in the general's statement, too. Use link (under green or salmon text above) to read article.

But in the end the this editorial actually points the finger at another group, the Iraqi administration and legislature.

The US government sent over a bipartisan group to figure out a Plan B on how to win this war. I read the other day a headline saying that the group of preeminent American analyst headed by James Baker III and Lee Hamilton (the 9/11 commission co-chair) had come up with no options. (I intended to, but forgot to get back and read it and other articles on the matter.) But this article does say that the Iraq Study Group did come up with something:
The same day Gen. Abizaid spoke, the chairmen of a bipartisan Iraq study group set up by Congress delivered a blunt message to the four-month-old Iraqi coalition government, which has been slow to take desperately needed steps toward national reconciliation. "The government of Iraq needs to show its own citizens soon, and the citizens of the United States, that it is deserving of continuing support," said former representative Lee H. Hamilton, who chairs the group along with former secretary of state James A. Baker III.

Unless that message is heeded, the sacrifice involved in holding U.S. troop levels steady for another six months -- in lives, above all -- is likely to be wasted.

This fits with history. President John F. Kennedy had signed papers on his desk when he was killed that called for the removal of 1000 of the advisorial troops in Vietnam because the South Vietnamese government was not sufficiently democratic. He also had told associates he had every intention of removing the rest of the American troops from the Asian country in 2005 after his re-election. Even in those days the warmongers had too much control of our nation though their raging maniac groups and business for even Kennedy to be able to pull out troops before an election year.

James Baker III--John F. Kennedy. Both have come down in favor of a truly fair democracy, which we are even losing in the US.

And what are the Congressional Republicans doing about this. Lining up behind Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove.