January 18, 2007
Bush Calls for Troop Cuts

More and more reporters and politicians seem to have grasped that to describe Bush’s desperate escalation as a “surge” is to play the White House’s semantic game. But few have noted that it is neither an escalation nor a surge. Taking the not very long view, it is an actual reduction in force.

In May of 2003, Bush’s army in Iraq stood at 180,000 — plainly, since we were not winning, not enough to win. By the end of 2005 we were still not winning with 159,000 troops.

At present, we continue not to win with 132,000 (winning now being modestly defined by Bush, although not in quite those words, as failure to fail). Bush’s absurd “surge” will thus put us in a position to continue not to win with a total strength of 152,000 — 7,000 smaller than the number of troops it took us not to win a little more than a year ago, and 28,000 fewer than it took us not to win almost four years ago.

The whole question of winning, however, is academic. Bush has been bleating over and over again these last weeks that “failure is not an option.” Oh, yes it is. He has left us no other. Surely even the most delusional of the White House warhogs knows by now that Bush has already failed. A hundred thousand more troops, even if we had them, would not be enough to rescue a failure so great.

Bush’s murderous plan aims at nothing but exchanging the lives of American soldiers to rescue a legacy that he has already irremediably soiled. It is a coward’s attempt to pass his loaded diaper on to a Democratic successor. Calling Bush's latest mess a surge won’t change anything.

You can’t shine shit.


warthog.jpg

Webding3.jpg

Posted by Jerome Doolittle at January 18, 2007 02:58 PM
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?