Tags: Bush | Losing | His | 'War | Terror'

Bush Losing His 'War on Terror'

Tuesday, 07 December 2004 12:00 AM

What world does Bush live in? The United States cannot control Iraq, much less battle the rest of the Muslim world and beyond. While Bush threatened the world with U.S. aggression, headlines revealed the futility of pre-emptively invading countries: "Pentagon to Boost Iraq Force by 12,000," "U.S. Death Toll in Iraq at Highest Monthly Level," "Wounded Disabled Soldiers Kept on Active Duty."

We are getting out butts kicked in Iraq, and Bush wants to invade more countries? It is clear as day that we do not have enough troops to deal with Iraq. The 12,000 additional troops "to improve security" are being acquired by extending the combat tours of troops already on duty in Iraq.

More U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in November than in any previous month. The United States is so hard up for troops that the Pentagon is deploying soldiers who have lost arms and legs in combat.

On Dec. 1, The Washington Post reported: "U.S. armed forces have recently announced new efforts to keep seriously wounded or disabled soldiers on active duty."

Redeploying the disabled is presented as a heroic demonstration of our gung-ho warriors' fighting spirit. But what it really means is we have no more troops to throw at the few thousand lightly armed Iraqi insurgents who have tied down eight U.S. divisions.

According to the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, it has treated 20,802 U.S. troops for injuries received in Iraq. According to the Pentagon's figures, 54 percent of the wounded are too seriously injured to return to their units.

If that figure is correct, it would mean that the insurgents have put 11,233 U.S. troops out of action. Add in the 1,254 U.S. troops who have been killed for a total of 12,487. That's 9 percent of our total force in Iraq and a much higher percentage of our combat force.

There is no indication that we have put 12,487 Iraqi insurgents out of action. Indeed, until very recently the U.S. military estimated that there were only several thousand active insurgents in all of Iraq.

Someone needs to tell Bush that terrorists are stateless and that invading states creates insurgencies. In Iraq, our soldiers are not fighting terrorists. They are fighting an insurgency that Bush created by invading Iraq. Bush's pre-emptive wars are a good way to depopulate the United States and bankrupt our country.

For all our firepower, we are not winning the war. Fallujah has been destroyed, but the U.S. military can claim only 1,200 to 1,600 insurgents were killed. Many of the dead counted as insurgents are probably civilians killed by the U.S. military's indiscriminate use of high explosives.

But even if we assume the military's estimate of enemy dead is accurate, it is an unimpressive figure in view of the 850 wounded and 71 dead Americans. U.S. Fallujah casualties of 921 is a strikingly high figure considering the heavy armor, artillery, helicopter gunships, jet fighters and sophisticated communications that back up U.S. troops.

Why was Bush in Nova Scotia advocating pre-emptive invasion unless Bush has other Middle Eastern countries targeted? Iran and Syria are the only two remaining Middle Eastern countries that are not ruled by U.S. puppets.

Lacking sufficient military forces to successfully occupy Iraq, how is Bush going to engage in pre-emptive wars against Iran and Syria without bringing back the draft?

If eight U.S. divisions can't do the job in Iraq, 16 U.S. divisions won't be enough for Iran. Defeating standing armies is a different game from occupying a hostile country. The U.S. military is good at the former, not at the latter.

Bush would serve our country and the rest of the world far better by ceasing his macho aggressive talk and working to create trust and goodwill. Bush is a very foolish man if he thinks America will bear no consequences for his support for Israel's appalling treatment of the Palestinians.

Is Bush really as stupid as he sounds? Is the president of the United States so poorly informed that he believes that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have nothing to do with U.S. support of Israel's destruction of the Palestinian people?

Surely the American president is not so dumb as to believe that Osama bin Laden went to all the trouble of bringing down the World Trade Center simply because Muslims hate freedom and democracy?

If all terrorists want to do is to show their disdain for Western freedom and democracy, they have much closer and softer targets in Italy, Greece, France, Germany, England, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium.

The American public is totally uninformed about the true character of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Americans could learn a great deal by reading Israeli newspapers and the reports of Israeli peace groups.

However, it is impossible to believe that the U.S. government is equally in the dark about the consequences of Bush's support for Israeli aggression against the Palestinians and the impact Bush's support of Israel has on Muslims' attitudes toward the United States.

A president who misled us about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and terrorist links will also mislead us about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, about Iran's intentions - indeed about everything. Bush proved that his word cannot be trusted; yet Americans re-elected him.

Bush got the voters' message: "Lie to us some more."

On Dec. 3, Russian President Vladimir L. Putin replied to Bush's Hallifax speech by declaring Bush's policy "dictatorial and hypocritical." Russia's leader warned that policies "based on the barrack-room principles of a unipolar world appear to be extremely dangerous."

Russian Air Force commander Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov announced that Russia, too, can engage in pre-emptive attacks. Russia has informed neighboring Georgia that Russia might use cruise missiles and strategic bombers in preventive strikes against Chechen terrorists sheltering on Georgian territory.

Bush's insane doctrine of pre-emptive war promises a 21st century more bloody than the 20th.



© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
What world does Bush live in? The United States cannot control Iraq, much less battle the rest of the Muslim world and beyond. While Bush threatened the world with U.S. aggression, headlines revealed the futility of pre-emptively invading countries: "Pentagon to Boost Iraq...
Tuesday, 07 December 2004 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved