Iraq Misses First Benchmark - Bush Hits His

| | Comments (0)

Secretary of Defense Gates said in a briefing today that the first benchmark is to see if Iraqi forces show up on time and in the numbers they were supposed to. Gen. Pace then said two brigades showed up for duty in Baghdad this last week, but only about 60%, (actually 55% according to reports), of the soldiers in each brigade showed up. The first benchmark has not been met.

Then Sec'y. of Defense Gates flat out lied to the American people; likely his first since taking his new role. When asked about our making war on Iran, he said we are not, well, er, we are not planning for war with Iran. That of course, is a complete and total lie.

It is the job and role of our Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense to be constantly planning 'what if' war scenarios with our enemies. In light of both Gate's and Pace's discussion of Iranians supplying IED's, personnel, and other equipment to Iraqi violence and our two aircraft carrier fleets sent into the Persian Gulf to intimidate Iran, it is clear they have to be planning on how war with Iran will take place.

Despite the National Intelligence Report, released this week, stating that the civil war in Iraq is part of the overall violence and threat to our goals in Iraq, Gates and Pace in the briefing today declined to use the words 'Civil War', saying that to call it that, is too simple, and that in fact their are 4 wars being fought in Iraq. Appears the situation in Iraq is worse than most Americans, who referred to it as a civil war, thought it was.

The summary public portion of the National Intelligence Report states that surge has little chance of resolving the situation in Iraq. That report is generated by the heads, analysts, and personnel in our foreign affairs and military agencies, as their best assessment of our situation. Gen. Casey this week said we don't need as many troops as we are sending in the surge. Given that our best minds in the Pentagon and government outside the political White House, including the Generals on the ground, have all said that in a war, one must enter with overwhelming force, Casey's remark indicates their is another mission for this surge in troops.

When General Casey states we have more troops than we need, the obvious question is: more troops than we need for what purpose? Clearly, the purpose of ending violence in Iraq, is not the mission Casey is commenting on, because it is obvious to everyone, that to quell the violence, vastly more troops are needed. So what is the mission for this surge?

It has been written here a number of times by this author, that the real mission for our troops in Iraq is to insure the war does not end either through withdrawal or defeat, until the next President is in office to take the consequences for what happens after we either withdraw, or continue on this path of shoring up a very bad democracy. A democracy unable and unwilling to be the kind of good democracy we think of when referring to countries like Australia, Germany, or Great Britain. In short, our troops are there to neither win nor lose, but, to pass the buck for the outcome to another administration. Could that be the mission Gen. Casey is referring to when saying the number of troops being sent in our 'surge' are more than is needed?

Of course, the Iraq war has, and continues, to serve another purpose of the White House. A purpose quite evident from the very beginning of the Bush administration. That purpose was to so vastly increase national debt as to make entitlement spending untenable. In addition to the 100 billion emergency supplemental the White House is asking for currently, President Bush's 2008 budget will include about 145 billion more. Folks, that is 1/4 trillion dollars, or as the Washington Post says, "about $800 for every man, woman and child in the U.S" for just the next year and a half.

The National Intelligence Estimate, the President, the and most Generals testifying before Congress have said our involvement in this war in Iraq will continue for many years, if not a decade or decades. Such spending clearly forces entitlement spending off the table. Last year's record profits of Exxon Mobil were surpassed again this year. And it has been the Bush Administration's policy from the beginning to subsidize the oil and other record profit industries, even during times of record profits.

Folks can draw their own conclusions, but, these facts clearly say to growing numbers of Americans, as in actions speak louder than words, that one of the Republican and White House's goal in creating the no-bid incredibly expensive Medicare Rx drug program, the invasion of Iraq, and subsidies to corporations making record profits, was to rack up national debt to such high levels as to force the bankrupting of the American people's safety net entitlement programs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report in January indicating that legislation on the books as of Jan. 1, placed our national debt at 12 trillion dollars by 2012.

Is it any wonder nations like China have slowed or stopped lending us money by way of buying our Treasury bonds. Would you loan money to someone who was racing to create the maximum amount of debt they possibly could?

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David R. Remer published on February 2, 2007 8:25 PM.

Sen Jon Kyl - Stuck on Starwars was the previous entry in this blog.

Campaign Finance Reform Dead is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Offsite Links