Friday, January 28, 2005
shell game
Well, according to President Bush and, it would seem, 99% of the American media, the historic elections in Iraq on Sunday represent some sort of turning point. And we, in our credulity, forget the fact that there have been dozens of such "turning points" over the past two years, without much tangible results. Well, sure, the Iraqis are now a "sovereign" people - not only that, they're SO "sovereign" that alls they have to do is ask and we'll gladly withdraw our troops ... if that's what the newly elected government wants. And just because I'm forgetting the reason the $1,500,000,000 American embassy in Baghdad is nothing at all like a Colonial headquarters, doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist.
But the nitty gritty is this:
Military Leaders Cautious on Iraqi Vote
An unremarkable headline, to be sure. But remember, this comes mere weeks after we were told that the increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq was necessary due to the violence focused around the upcoming elections. Now they're quietly warning us that it's going to be very possibly MORE violent AFTER the elections.
Huh.
Since we have the collective attention span of lint in this country, I have no reason to believe that if we are still in Iraq at these troop levels, casualty rates, and empty promises in one year, any of us will remember the turning-the-corner rhetoric of today. Oh well, it's just a TV show anyway.
By the way, according to icasualties.org, the last 10 months have each been deadlier for U.S. troops than the corresponding months the year before. In other words, April 2003 (12 days after the initial invasion) was less deadly than April 2004; May 2003 was less deadly than May 2004; and so on until January 2005, in which twice as many military personell have died in Iraq compared to January 2004. This will almost certainly be true in February and March, which during 2003 were relatively quiet months. However, if the same holds in April (April 2003 having been the deadliest month for U.S. troops before this past November) then it must be said finally that we are headed in the wrong direction; at that point, there will be no doubt. And the longer we wait to get out, the worse it will be for all involved.
(P.S. As for the coalition of the willing, just note that more U.S. troops have died in the past two months than troops from all other members of the coalition during the entire war. Didn't Bush say he was going to get us more help after the American elections? Where are those interested parties???)
But the nitty gritty is this:
Military Leaders Cautious on Iraqi Vote
An unremarkable headline, to be sure. But remember, this comes mere weeks after we were told that the increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq was necessary due to the violence focused around the upcoming elections. Now they're quietly warning us that it's going to be very possibly MORE violent AFTER the elections.
Huh.
Since we have the collective attention span of lint in this country, I have no reason to believe that if we are still in Iraq at these troop levels, casualty rates, and empty promises in one year, any of us will remember the turning-the-corner rhetoric of today. Oh well, it's just a TV show anyway.
By the way, according to icasualties.org, the last 10 months have each been deadlier for U.S. troops than the corresponding months the year before. In other words, April 2003 (12 days after the initial invasion) was less deadly than April 2004; May 2003 was less deadly than May 2004; and so on until January 2005, in which twice as many military personell have died in Iraq compared to January 2004. This will almost certainly be true in February and March, which during 2003 were relatively quiet months. However, if the same holds in April (April 2003 having been the deadliest month for U.S. troops before this past November) then it must be said finally that we are headed in the wrong direction; at that point, there will be no doubt. And the longer we wait to get out, the worse it will be for all involved.
(P.S. As for the coalition of the willing, just note that more U.S. troops have died in the past two months than troops from all other members of the coalition during the entire war. Didn't Bush say he was going to get us more help after the American elections? Where are those interested parties???)
Comments:
<< Home
Very very nice post there. I have not yet seen this analysis, that compares one month from 2003 with the same in 2004, showing that the war just gets worse and worse and worse. And this is the first analysis I have ever seen of these phony turning the corner things, and how, after we turn the corner, suddenly there is more violence projected again.
How can anyone believe them? Given that Bush has to stay in Iraq for many years as part of the project, how can he possibly leave, even if this fake government asks him to? If the government says split, then what?
Post a Comment
How can anyone believe them? Given that Bush has to stay in Iraq for many years as part of the project, how can he possibly leave, even if this fake government asks him to? If the government says split, then what?
<< Home
