11 January 2007

Iraq fiasco heading in dark directions

King George just had his 'historic' speech in which he was suppose to set out in a new direction on Iraq. What he gave everyone was the same old shit. In the clearest sign yet that he doesn't have a clue about what the reality of the situation is (not public opinion, but whats going on on the ground and where things are heading).

The LA Times reports, "U.S. approaches falling short not only in Iraq, but in the entire Arab world. The BBC states that "Senior US legislators from both parties have attacked President George W Bush's plans to send more than 20,000 extra troops to Iraq." In perhaps the most stinging review, a piece in the International Herald Tribune states that the "war is already over. This last article is a must read.

What I find so infuriating about King Georges ignorance is that it is dangerously short sighted. There are times when we must go to war, there are times we need to sacrifice the lives of our young men and women, and there are times to stand alone. The situation in Iraq meets none of the criteria.

The worst part about this new plan is in the details. Over 20,000 American troops will flood into Baghdad, systematically sweep the neighborhoods, then stay stationed in those neighborhoods, presumably to keep the peace and order. What is going to happen however, is that these troops will be sitting ducks for any muslim fanatic with a truck bomb or insurgents with a moderately planned assault. Remember what happened in Beirut under Reagans disasterous Lebanon mission?

The civil war is already raging and all sides (except perhaps the Kurds) want us dead. If this isn't a clue its time to leave, what would be? Partition the damn country, let each side govern itself, and lets get our troops out ASAP.

ps. entertaining sidenote: make King George talk