Home > Politics, News & Issues > International Politics > War & Peace
Created on: January 15, 2007 Last Updated: April 19, 2007
General Colin Powell definitively said that more troops are not needed in Iraq. What is needed is a change of direction and mission. Bush's agents went to Iraq and spoke top colonels in the field and they told everyone that they need more troops. Powell said that's what Colonels always as for. That's why you have Generals. All the generals who stated that they did not need more troopps were fired.
What I don't understand is the same insanity of creating a myth about the development of WMDs is also happening in the war. The people who prosecute trhe war in Washington have spent a day in the service ( including Bush ) and they don't know what they are doing and how to go about handling the assignment.
In Iraq we have three parasllel but competing arms of the American Army. The Army itself which is an attack force and doesn't have a clue as how to handle the civilian population or how to handle the occupation. The Marines who fight a closer to the ground war and embed their forces into the local population and more successfully handle the local population without alienating them. And then their are the special forces units which are trained to work with the indigent population and work out a more realistic agenda for handling a dangerous situation.
Let's not forget the basic scenario. Bill Clinton had Sadam Hussein under control. His no-fly-zone policy did't cost any American lives, was inexpensive to operate and in the end would have greater effect than what is happening now. Ergo, Sadam Hussein didn't have any WMDs because every time they tried, the no fly zone airforce bom,bed them out of existence. Sure Sadam Hussien was heavy handed. That's the only thing religious combatants understand.
Yugoslavia did't fall apart until Tito died and the Serbs, Moslems and Christians went after each other's throats the minute the death threat of Tito to behave was lifted.
George Bush created a war against Sadam Hussein to get even for him dissing father Bush after the Gulf war. How many more wars do we have to endure and more young American lives are lost. We fought in Vietnam for naught. We fought in Korea for nothing. We are fighting in Iraq foolihly as well. What else do you expect from a Yale University 'C' average student.
If George Bush had any real guts he would start a major Public Relations campaign to go to Tehran to speak with the Iranian heads of state, with the purpose communicating with the Iranian people. Surveys have shown that Iranians love Americans but hate our government. Unless we difuse Iran and Syria, we will never solve Iraq. Sure we have allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, etc. All monarchies who fear being overthrown by radical muslms. And they will be overthrown eventually. Time is not on their side.
The war between Shiite and Sunni has lasted for over 1,000 years. It will not end within the next two years.
Learn more about this author, Ira Scherr.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Reactions to President Bush's speech on adding 20,000+ more troops in Iraq
President Bush is preparing to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops to improve the security situation in Baghdad. Opponents
by Brad Kincaid
In 1917, France heard General Nivelle tell it, "We have the formula for victory." He then launched France on a catastrophic
by Ted Sherman
Most briefly put: surge = dirge. Sending a surge of 20,000 more troops to fight in a war without end will result only in
by Ira Scherr
General Colin Powell definitively said that more troops are not needed in Iraq. What is needed is a change of direction
by Les Zsoldos
President Bush faces a lot of resistance witin his own party with his plan to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq. It appears
View All Articles on: Reactions to President Bush's speech on adding 20,000+ more troops in Iraq