Mon
Jul
14
2008
U.S. troops died in Taliban attempt to storm base
As in Vietnam, we have spokespeople characterizing each battle as a victory. In this case the U.N. spokesperson on tv claimed that the enemy intended to overrun the base and they “failed” and that our forces brought about a victory. First how does he know what the attackers “intended” to do? Even still, what victory is this?
I simply thought it was remarkable that the spokesperson characterized this defensive action as a major achievement in the afghanistan war. Compared to Vietnam it would seem the year is ’67 rather than ’08. It was in 1967 when we saw changes in how the situation was reported and rhetoric from the administration.
With an election later this year we will see such a change and a difference in how the military reports compared to how the administration characterizes the war. Then we will see the same excuses after a major U.S pullout. As in Vietnam, that the military was not permitted to win the war.
Sun
Jun
29
2008
Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed
Another study stating the obvious. But understaffed for what? To contain or control the population? Where is the study on that? An “if adequately staffed” study.
Also obvious to me would be the conclusion that says this was a failure regardless of staffing. But perhaps the Army or the administration more appropriately could first declare the objective then state more specifically the success or how it may fail.
But of course, Mr. President says failure is not an option. And so does McCain if that ego maniac moron wins.
Just curious but when is something a failure if it clearly is not a success?
Mon
Mar
24
2008
Inflation, deflation, and Cheney
While watching the local news a brief interview with Cheney by some unknown reporter was interjected into the regular news stream. The question posed to him was how he felt about a recent poll that indicates most Americans think that Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Basically he responded with a so what.
I argued privately at the beginning of this war as most anti-statists and true free marketers already know that this Iraq folly will cost us dearly. It will cost us in economic terms people largely ignored until now.
Now we have higher prices everywhere at a level most Americans cannot ignore. It is here where we can make a stronger link between Iraq and our economy than Cheney did between Iraq and Al-quaeda.
And to those Americans feeling the pinch I ask, how do you like the war now? If this consequence could have been explained in lucid detail to Americans most would have surely rallied against it, I hope. Thats a bit optimistic but nevertheless. The harmful effects of this war will not be explained this way to the Americans.
Instead Cheney’s ugly head will continue to triumph in the so called success of the surge and a new hope for Iraq, hurray. As Iraq experiences its own roller coaster as a nation that will ultimately fail as such (we have explored this one). The American nation will travel down its roller coaster of economic malaise trying to believe otherwise.
Cheney and Bush should go down ignominiously in history. One way or another these fools should pay for leading such a failed policy.
Thu
Jan
31
2008
From surge to resurge
The Canadian PM requested more troop support from Bush in order to defend against a resurgent Taliban otherwise he will remove all his troops.
What a mess. Bush invades Iraq for no reason and cannot even support the U.S. interest in Afghanistan.
So as far as timeline goes, the u.s. is about halfway done. The Soviets fought almost 10 years in that country before being humiliated.
