7 Comments so far

1. Earthian February 4th, 2007 6:17 pm

   Lost cause for what? Obviously, to defeat the resistance forces with a small escalation of 21,500 is ridiculous.

   What about motive, you know, the real one, not the stated one?

   So saying that the stated motive is the actual motive is questionable–even absurd, as the troops suggest. But . . . there is a simple explanation–the additional troops in Baghdad are being moved there (as Robert Parry suggested) for one single purpose: to protect the so-called “Green Zone” (Americans and collaborators in a restricted palace area) from Shiite resistance militias after Bush orders an air attack on Iran.

   How else can he protect the American puppet government (”Green Zone”) after the attack on Iran?

   Is this obvious? While I can’t predict the actual motives of the Bush administration, this seems likely and obviously so.

   If anyone disagrees, what is a different sensible, rational, likely explanation?

   Earthian

2. blessthebeasts February 4th, 2007 7:20 pm

   Makes as much sense as any of the stated rationale. Actually, there is no explanation,
   except to create more chaos and confuse everyone about what is really going on: the takeover of the region.

3. metroeloise February 4th, 2007 9:18 pm

   Could we please stop call this a “troop surge!” In fact every spun out word or phase used by this adminsitration and its media ought be released to the plain, direct words they are trying to hide from. Escalation, that is the word.

4. bakunin February 4th, 2007 9:28 pm

   As a confirmed dominionist christian fundamentalist, Bush is 100% convinced that his rash policies to refashion the Middle East will work despite all the evidence to the contrary. Cheney is in love with executive power and dreams of a dictatorship in the United States with a fully compliant legislative branch and judiciary. These two men are a clear danger to this country and the world. As citizens we have the obligation to try to get them out of power as soon as possible and before the end of their term in office.

5. ice_9 February 5th, 2007 4:56 pm

   “Maj. Christopher Wendland, a senior staff officer for Dunham’s brigade, said he thinks there’s a good chance that by late 2007 American troops will have handed over most of Baghdad to Iraqi troops.”

   Four years, thousands of dead and injured, billions of wasted dollars and now, after adding another 21 thousand potential casualties, they tell us that just maybe before the end of the year they will control most of Baghdad.

   Even the most bloody-fisted war hawk would have to admit that we simply can’t afford wars like this no more.

6. bnnopacipizy December 10th, 2007 4:49 am

   tittonytuvaky…

   exkuvakehiro…

7. bnhotopociry December 26th, 2007 8:17 pm

   titzocuwyzeno…

   exzoxasinuxy…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)