Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Soldier Asks What Will "Next Story" Be To Keep Troops In Iraq

U.S. troops cheered as news of Saddam's execution appeared on television at the mess hall at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in eastern Baghdad. But some soldiers expressed doubt that Saddam's death would be a significant turning point for Iraq.

"First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial,'' said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?''

-- Associated Press report, Dec. 30

***

That's a very good question. Does anyone have an answer?

The most recent "next story" given by President Bush for staying in Iraq was "to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time."

Of course, the "Bush Doctrine" on fledgling Middle East democracies doesn't extend to the Palestinians, Lebanese or Egyptians. That's what happens when you have a foreign policy that is one part failed neocon theory and one part empty catch phrases and other conservative spin.

***

Just 16 percent of Americans think the federal government reflects the "will of the people." Just 11 percent agree with the latest neocon theory -- the "McCain Doctrine" -- which calls for the U.S. to increase troops levels in Iraq. Bush is expected to follow through on this gameplan.

The administration spin -- the "next story" -- is that by increasing troops, the U.S. can gain control over violence in Baghdad, then speed up the handover of territory to Iraqi forces.

It sounds good on paper, but the Bush Administration has been wrong so many times on Iraq, Americans have the right to be skeptical.

Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary in the Reagan Administration, offered two reasons to be worried that this "next story" will not be the last: "If you send another 20,000 more troops, casualties are going to go up, you're going to increase the Iraqi's dependence on us."

And of course, there are s problem with stretching the military so thin -- ranging from anxiety, depression and acute stress to suicide. But such concerns rarely get in the way of neocon theory.

12 Comments:

Anonymous Jackpine Radical said...

The "next story" will be revealed right after we bomb the crap out of Iran.

12:57 PM  
Anonymous riderinthestorm said...

I'm betting a manufactured incident in Iraq, blamed on Iran like a suitcase nuke "linked" (cough) to Iran, exploding at a US base.

That will provide a dual purpose: ignite renewed passion for the Iraq War from the soldiers, and give Bu$hco the reason to launch against Iran.

12:58 PM  
Anonymous IanDB1 said...

It will be to keep Saudi troops out of the North of Iraq, Turkish troops out of Kurdistan... and Iranian troops out of the South of Iraq.

And to recover Saddam's solid gold toilet after someone manages to steal it.

12:58 PM  
Anonymous shain from kane said...

"...to take the lead..." Is that show leadership, or bite the bullet?

12:58 PM  
Anonymous jobycom said...

A modified domino theory, probably. Iraq is falling under the influence of Iran and so we have to stop Iraq from falling to Iran, because then Iran will take over Syria, then Lebanon, and then Israel will be surrounded, etc, etc, etc.

You know all that effort they've put into misconstruing the words of Ahmadinejad, to make him look insane? That's not just for sport, you know. It's all part of the Pax Americana effort, otherwise known as PNAC. Basic old colonialism and empire building, in other words. But it's not just to justify a conflict with Iran. It's also to justify our efforts in Iraq.

My theory, anyway.

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Deep13 said...

Bin Laden fingerpuppets found in Bagdad.

12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any stories from soldiers that know they are doing the right thing and want to finish the job they started? Just wondering. Probably too many to post here, so just keep misleading with the minority.

2:15 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Ah yes. Another smart word from Doofus McPhee.

7:13 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Perhaps Anonymous has not had access in his bubble to the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military in Iraq and Afghanistan want to see more troops sent; 42 percent disapprove of Bush's handling of the war (verses 35 percent who approve) and only 50 percent believe success is likely in Iraq, (down from 83 percent in 1984).
http://tinyurl.com/yew6dz

Oh, let me guess, you believe the Military Times is a "liberal poll" or something to that effect.

7:53 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Typo above. I meant 2004, not 1984.

7:40 AM  
Blogger breakdown said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:41 PM  
Blogger One Team said...

why dont u just sent that Bush,Clinton,Obama to Iraq?? all of them very happy stay on State and never worry think about the poor soldier..and your soldier on Iraq every day is worry and thinking when that bullet will crashed on their head..

calm down
Burn Fat N Beauty!

12:40 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares