Yesterday the number of "after the war" the number of u.S. Soldiers killed in action during the war
"Our only goal, our only option, is total victory in the war on terror." with this mission, george w. Bush through his country. War veterans are an appreciative audience. Members of the american legion in st.Louis understand better than others the strong words and also this: "more progress will come in iraq and it will require hard and sustained efforts." in simple german, this is the beginning of the slogans of perseverance, which are supposed to make one thing forgotten: yesterday, tuesday, the number of "after the war" the number of u.S. Servicemen killed (140) exceeds the number killed during the official war (138). No end in sight.
"The vehicles of the us forces are under-armored and particularly susceptible to the anti-tank missiles from the old arsenal of the iraqi army", writes victor o’reilly in his 108-page analysis for james h. Saxton, the republican congressman from new jersey.
George w. Bush, on the other hand, sees himself on the right track. 1100 prisoners, 8200 tons of ammunition and thousands of seized weapons, 42 of 55 most wanted iraqis captured or killed, 38000 iraqis hired as police and ready for training in a former hungarian barracks, and 31 countries that sent a total of 21000 soldiers to iraq.
The president’s entourage explains that the support for iraq and the middle east is much less than for the reconstruction of germany. The marshall plan, which ran for 4 years, was worth the equivalent of 100 billion us dollars. Iraq has received only 2.5 billion us dollars out of the planned 70.
Senators chuck hagel (republican from nebraska) and joseph biden (democrat from delaware), members of the foreign relations committee, on the evening news hour on pbs, were visibly concerned about the president’s speech, which was only a few hours ago, and about the goal of total victory.
Chuck hagel, recently returned from a trip to iraq, emphasizes: the fight in iraq is only one of many arenas. America needs help from the whole world, because the whole world is affected. No nation alone is powerful enough to accomplish this task, he said. The people of iraq are marginalized, suffering from health and economic problems, divided and hopeless. This creates problems over "years of years to come". "Until the afghan president is more than the mayor of kabul, and indonesian islamists and many other terrorist groups remain active unchecked, there will be no american victory."
Joseph biden is vehemently opposed to the nipple piercing used by the u.S. President in his st.Louis speech used phrase iraq is american challenge against which future will be measured.
Why should we insist that the u.S. Provide 95 percent of the troops, costs and other personnel?? I will find it better if the president says: i have spoken with putin on the phone and with the heads of the nato countries, and i have discussed how we can reach a common solution. I don’t know what total victory means. For me, it would be a victory if iraq became a republic of all citizens, a cohesive country, an islamic country, sacred and stable like turkey. And when our young men and women were back home again. But in this way, neither iraq nor the roadmap for palestine and israel will be advanced. If egypt were to fall under the prere of islamic militants, chaos would ensue.
Both senators are part of a group trying to get the u.S. President to share the burden honestly with the world’s well-meaning. "It would have been stupid if we had gone to war in iraq just for the oilfields and the reconstruction contracts", joseph biden declared. Probably, as both senators put it, the advance failed because of the opposition of dick cheney and donald rumsfeld, although so far the formal response of the white house is pending.
With this talk, a breach has been made for the first time in the neocons’ wall (cf. The seizure of power by the neocons in washington). If democrats and republicans team up, what william kristol fears in the september ie of the weekly standard) could happen: if bush loses the election for president in the fall, democrats will have won four consecutive majorities, and that will prompt some republicans to make common cause with democrats. From the point of view of the neocons, therefore, there is only one consequence: a mistake in iraq puts "american policy, world leadership and security at stake." this is the assessment of william kristol and robert kagan, also in the latest weekly standard. More soldiers ("there are too few good guys chasing the bad guys"), more money (put a little money in iraqi pockets), and more western re-education is therefore the watchword.
The proposals of senators chuck hagel and joseph biden have a lot in common with the ideas of leon t. Hadar of the cato institute, (cf. The american macho man and the neutered euroweenies).
Far more radical comes the opinion of lawrence f. Kaplan and john b. Judis in the new republic therefore. The u.S. Should withdraw troops to the borders of iraqi anarchy to counter the imperialist impression created by its association with former colonial power great britain. Further, the u.S. Needed to defuse the centuries-old conflict between imperialism and nationalism. It was important to involve the united nations, but even more important to involve iraq’s neighbors. One will ask: was it worth the invasion? (billions of us dollars, thousands of war victims, and the destruction of a worldwide system based on collective security and international law).
That is a question, unfortunately, that the geniuses in the bush administration should have been asking last march.
The die does not seem to be cast yet: bush has been in st.Louis no troop increase in prospect and also not more money. Maybe it’s just a well-dosed pause in the art.