A story was reported this week with very little fanfare from the media. President Bush is planning on following recommendations to withdraw around 8000 troops from Iraq by January of 2009. He would also send a small group of Marines to Afghanistan in November; No, not to add troops but to replace the ones leaving.
Folks, military commanders in Afghanistan are asking for `more' troops, not less, not the same -- more. President Bush and John McCain are failing their jobs. Bush and McCain have both promised to provide everything to the generals on the ground that they ask for - they've failed in that mission.
President BUSH said he will give the Generals ANYTHING they want - he's lying once again. John McCain being 100% behind President Bush is therefore ALSO to lying. With his current power over the Party, having a press conference demanding that Bush do something would do wonders - but he won't.
What isn't noticed as much during this news report are the words, "at least one Marine battalion will leave (Iraq) and not be replaced, as well as a few thousand support forces". Don't you wonder how many `thousands' that number is? I do.
Two weeks ago General Petraeus wanted to maintain current levels in Iraq - about 146,000, including 15 combat brigades and thousands of support forces through June.
There's no telling exactly how many troops we still have in Iraq because the news reports never match up. We're never told the truth. But if it's true that in January of 2007, before the `surge', we had 130,000 total troops there in Iraq, and if it's true that there's been an 80 percent drop in violence - why then do we continue to have, at the very least, 16,000 more troops there than what we had before the `surge'?
My point is, we are told 130,000 but they don't include the support troops and whatever terminology they use to describe the `extras'.
We do not have over 146,000 troops in Japan, Germany, etc.. There are about 30-50,000 in each overseas station. And in case you haven't noticed - those countries aren't still having suicide bombers or roadside bombs going off risking those soldiers lives on a daily basis. I might also point out that the soldiers in those safer zones are Regular soldiers - not temporary National Guard or Reserves. 95% of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are NG or Reserves.
If the `surge' worked and we have `victory' why aren't the Iraqi soldiers taking charge? Why isn't the Iraqi government solving its problems politically? Last but not least, why aren't our troops heading home by now in great masses?
So, as if provinces are being handed off -- why do we continue to have the more troops there now than before the surge?
That is the most important question to ask Senator John McCain.
He and his surrogates kept talking about having `victory' in Iraq during their GOP convention this past week. Victory means war is over sir; Troops go home. It doesn't mean troops stay - in greater forces than what were there before the so-called victory.
This should STILL be the MOST important thing American's should be worried about. Why? Why are our troops still there if the surge was successful? Why are even MORE there than before this surge?
Yes the economy is slow and people are hurting but just imagine how these men and women are doing and how their families are doing. They are the ones we AMERICANS should be FIGHTING for -- Senator John McCain!
As a side note; I predicted that Bush would be giving an announcement just in time for Election Day about troop withdraws, to give John McCain something to `brag' about.
8000 troops is a lot of troops and I'm sure each one is ecstatic about leaving; but 146,000 plus are still there folks. Never, Never forget that.
The WHY is -- we're still at war. Bush and his Party aren't quite sure the SURGE worked - they're afraid if they start pulling out in greater masses, all heck will break loose and McCain and the GOP will be HURT during the election for that failure.
They're not dumb. So, they are `holding' till after the election to see who wins. If McCain wins, he'll reevaluate everything, most likely stay till 2011, as he's announced he would - guaranteeing `control' of the government there, then pulling out just in time for 2012 election cycle; Declaring VICTORY once again.
If Obama wins, and since the surge didn't `really' solve the problems there, and if Obama doesn't handle things just right - `he' will be blamed for the failed war there - instead of Bush and McCain. Note that McCain and Bush are now BOTH on record as saying they want out and are willing to have a timeline.
They are covering their butts. If there's a victory when Obama wins office - they'll take credit saying they went in and were coming out too. If there's a failure when Obama wins office - they'll blame him for it. If Obama tries to pull out, he may find he can't - this will anger his base hurting his chances for reelection. If McCain wins - they'll HOLD for 3 more years before pulling out most of the troops.
The GOP got us in there. They will take credit or pass blame now - depending on the outcome.
I've said in the very beginning that we poked our arm into a beehive and we'll never `completely' be able to pull it out now - thanks to the GOP. That was their plan from the beginning.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 0 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
