The Liberal Bible™© has a differing view (or sources) on the "stay the course in Iraq, no matter what the Congrefs or Iraqis say" story from the WaPo that we liberally (Ha ha, get it?) quoted from an item or so ago. (Scroll down.)One factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other fighters have intensified their insurgency and inflicted a growing number of casualties on Afghans and American-led forces there.What a surprise. Take your eye off the proverbial ball for just a few yrs., & WHACK!! it's concussion time.
More American and allied troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May and June, a trend that has continued this month.
Course, a mighty, manly bunch of compensating pindicks never know where troops may be needed.
The desire to move more quickly reflects the view of many in the Pentagon who want to ease the strain on the military but also to free more troops for Afghanistan and potentially other missions.Any guesses where those "potentially other missions" may be?
This couldn't possibly be a political move, to influence the upcoming presidential election, could it? After all, should His Imperial Majesty King George approve these plans & troop levels in Iraq go down to about 130,000, it'll be as if the war is over & all the boys & girls have come home, won't it?
And Afghanistan, well, we won't really have to start fighting there until next spring. It's only been almost seven yrs. since we jumped ugly w/ them, so that should be over by, say, 2020. Although it's not clear that we have any interest in imposing democracy there. Indeed, as we don't seem to be looking for Bin Laden any longer, one might wonder just why...Oh, oil & gas pipelines, sorry. We forget sometimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment