What the heck is this? Now Rumsfeld is telling troops mired in Iraq that they don't have an "exit strategy", but a "victory strategy".
To me that sounds like a euphemism for a really long term occupation of Iraq. Effectively turning Iraq into a launch point for a future US operations in the Middle East.
Although the insurgency in Iraq has fallen off the headlines on US news sites, there seems to be little indication that it has actually diminished in scope and persistence. This gives the US the perfect excuse to continue maintaining an occupying force in Iraq. Ongoing uncertainty in Afghanistan also allows the US to continue staging forces in that country, preparing for what I suspect is a long desired invasion of Iran sometime in the next couple of years.
(I strongly suspect the current bunch of Neo/Theo Cons in the US administration still have a serious grudge with Tehran stemming from the 1979 revolution and US Embassy hostage incidents)
4 comments:
It all boils down to the fact they had no clue on how they were going to disengage from Vietnam... er... Iraq. Now they're trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Unfortunately for the US, they don't have the military streingth to mount a second invation in the region. Iraq is streaching the US military to it's limits, assuming that the US wishes to keep its military in its current deployment.
Ah yes, but this is the era of Wolfowitz's "War Lite" model of a rapid deployment military - they can conquer an entire in the blink of an eye.
- Of course, getting out's a different problem.
Can I PLEASE watch as they "conquer an entire".
Where's their defeat strategy?
Sure - it's not like the US knows what they are trying to conquer...
Post a Comment