Ok, great. So by 'withdrawing nearly all U.S. combat units' the Post actually means 'keep 70,000 troops in Iraq as advisors with guns and bases'.
I'm so glad Very Serious People are in charge and are able to put together Very Serious Bipartisan Study Groups that ignore hippies like Jack Murtha and the American people.
Howie opinion: a huge issue is raised in the comments by holofernes:
The thing that both the press and the public conveniently forget when there are discussions of "withdrawal" and "troop reductions" is what happens to the bases?
Total withdrawal can never be an option, because we would never abandon the "super" bases that have built, and IMHO, were the real reason behind the invasion in the first place. GO back and read the PNAC documents carefully and you'll see the real purpose was to establish new forward operations bases in Iraq, since having bases in Saudi Arabia were causing so much trouble politically. Removal of Saddam Hussein was only necessary as a pretense, to install a friendly government that would "welcome our presence."
If you think things are bad now, wait until the Iraqis (and maybe even the American people) learn that we've never had any intention of leaving -- EVER. And we've built the bases to prove it.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront 2005/03/enduring_bases_iraq.html
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12441799/sit e/newsweek
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pi d=141587
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042103B. shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment