March 19, 2006
|"Nothing Less Than Complete Victory"||Iraq|
In his weekly radio address yesterday, President Bush once again conflated Iraq with 9/11, as he tried to cast the Iraq war in Churchillian moral terms. WaPo:
On the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, President Bush yesterday promised to "finish the mission" with "complete victory," urging the American public to remain steadfast but offering no indication when victory may be achieved.
"More fighting and sacrifice will be required," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "For some, the temptation to retreat and abandon our commitments is strong. Yet there is no peace, there's no honor and there's no security in retreat. So America will not abandon Iraq to the terrorists who want to attack us again." [...]
A White House fact sheet on Iraq...buttressed the president's assertion last week that Iraqi security forces are assuming greater battlefield responsibility.
Democrats noted last week, however, that a recent Pentagon report said the number of "Level 1" Iraqi units capable of operating independently of the United States had dropped from one to zero. [...]
Three years ago, the fact sheet said, "life in Iraq was marked by brutality, fear and terror" and Iraqis "had no voice in their country or their lives." Today, it said, "the reign of terror has been replaced by a democratically elected government." [...]
"These past three years have tested our resolve," he said. "The enemy has proved brutal and relentless . . . and our troops have shown magnificent courage and made tremendous sacrifices" which, along with Iraqi sacrifices, had given Iraq a "historic opportunity" to rebuild itself.
"The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people," Bush said, "and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory." [Emphasis added]
Nothing less than complete victory. Can he possibly believe what he's saying? Meanwhile, former Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the BBC that Iraq has descended into civil war. CNN:
"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," [Allawi] said.
Although conditions have not passed the "point of no return," he said, if that point is reached, fragile efforts to build a new government "will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the U.S. will not be spared the violence that results." [Emphasis added]
Sounds like something less than complete victory to me.
I made a comment not to long ago that the only reason we waged war on Iraq was for oil. Then on Friday night I saw the documentary _Why_We_Fight_ which gave as it's primary reason a phrase Dwight D. Eisenhower coined in his farewell speech some 5 decades ago, the military-industrial complex. I get the concept completely and have no doubt that possibility such an infrastructure exists, possibly in full bloom. If a military-industrial complex exists in the size alluded to in the documentary, this reason sort-of dwarfs the oil reason, and would have a lot more people profiting then just the oil industry.
The documentary did a very poor job of making direct links between members of Congress and the Administration with corporations who are in the business of war. The single exception of coarse being Dick Cheney 's ties to Halliburton.
Can anyone point me to information that directly links people between these two institutions?
Posted by: Jeff at March 20, 2006 07:32 PM