"We support the troops!" That's the
excuse the Democrats have given for continuing to fund Bush's aggression against
Iraq and Afghanistan. But, of course, war funding doesn't support the troops.
War funding supports an evil machine that chews up and spits out the lives and
well-being of the troops, along with that of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
and Afghan, men, women, and children. War funding supports Bush's aggression
in Iraq and Afghanistan and his continuing efforts to occupy both countries
in order to turn them into puppet states.
Polls show that a majority of the troops and their families do not support
Bush's aggression. The fact that Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican presidential
nomination received the lion's share of contributions from military families
also underlines the great divide between the troops and those who would "support"
them by keeping them in Iraq and Afghanistan. What all those ribbon decals on
the back of SUVs proclaiming "support the troops" really mean is support
Bush's wars of aggression against Muslims.
According to the Washington Post, Bush's
$3.1 trillion federal budget provides no funding for his proposal in his
State of the Union address to permit military members to transfer their unused
education benefits to family members. Bush got applause for his nationally televised
words, but the troops and their families got no money in his budget.
Government analysts calculate the education benefits would cost in the range
of $1-2 billion annually the cost of funding the war for two days.
The only money that Bush and Congress want to give the troops is what is required
to keep them at war. Everyone has read the horror stories of the lack of care
for the physically and emotionally wounded troops who have made it back from
In contrast, to fund Bush's war, Bush and Congress have already spent
in out-of-pocket and future costs at least $1,000 billion. Every American can
draw up lists of better uses of this immense fortune than blowing up a country's
infrastructure and killing hundreds of thousands of its citizens.
Nothing good whatsoever has been accomplished by Bush's invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan. It was obvious to anyone with a lick of sense in 2002, six months
prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq on March 18, 2003, that an invasion would be
a strategic blunder. William S. Lind,
myself, and others made that prediction in October 2002. Three years later,
Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, vindicated
us by declaring Bush's invasion of Iraq to be "the greatest strategic disaster
in U.S. history." If the head of the NSA doesn't know a "strategic
disaster" when he sees one, who does?
Gen. Odom's assessment is certainly correct. Bush, Cheney, the neocons, and
the sycophantic media were completely wrong. Look at the situation today. Unable
to defeat the Sunni insurgency, the U.S. "superpower" has had to resort
to paying tens of millions of dollars to insurgent leaders to bribe them not
to attack U.S. troops. In addition, Bush is supplying the insurgents with weapons
"to fight al-Qaeda." The Sunni leaders gladly accept the money and
weapons, but how long can they survive being collaborators with the American
enemy that has destroyed their country and the Sunni place in the sun?
It was obvious to everyone but Bush and the neocons that overthrowing Saddam
Hussein in the name of democracy would put the majority Shi'ites, who are allied
with Iran, in place as the new rulers of Iraq. So far the Iraqi Shi'ites have
bided their time and have not joined in earnest the insurgency against the U.S.
occupation. Instead, they, like the Sunnis, have directed most of their attention
to cleansing neighborhoods of one another. The reasons that violence
although still higher than Americans could live with is down are that
most of the neighborhoods are now segregated, Sadr has ordered his militia to
stand down, and the Sunni insurgents are being paid not to attack U.S. troops.
Bush started a war, and now to avoid losing it Bush pays Iraqis not to attack
The Sunnis and Shi'ites are stronger than ever, while the U.S. troops are worn
down and demoralized from multiple lengthy combat tours that violate traditional
U.S. military policy.
It was also obvious that Bush's invasions would destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan.
On Feb. 8, seasoned foreign correspondent Warren Strobel reported for the McClatchy
newspapers that "Pakistan
is now the central front in America's war on terror." On Feb. 9, the
Washington Post reported: "Pakistan faces a growing threat from
a new generation of radicalized, battle-hardened militants who embrace jihad
and have become allied with local and international terrorists intent on toppling
the pro-Western government [shorthand for paid U.S. puppet], a senior U.S. intelligence
official told reporters yesterday."
U.S. officials have been pressing Pakistan, to no effect, to allow U.S. troops
to join the Pakistani army's fight against Pakistani tribes allied with the
Taliban. U.S. officials, "speaking on condition of anonymity," are
trying to muster support for an expanded U.S. military role in Pakistan by alleging
that Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar are in Pakistan
with their top commanders. Bush wants to bomb Pakistan in order to win the war
With all available U.S. troops tied down in Iraq, the U.S. is using NATO soldiers
as mercenaries to try to counter a resurgent Taliban. Europeans are tiring of
their role as an European proxy for America's legions, and the NATO commander
speaks of a NATO defeat in Afghanistan.
NATO was an alliance created to resist a Soviet invasion of Europe. The U.S.
has kept an unnecessary NATO alive for 18 years as a source of troops for its
foreign adventures. Europeans dislike being mercenaries for an American empire,
especially one that slaughters civilians.
Desperate for troops, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trying to scare
Europeans with the threat of "international terrorism," but Europeans
know that the best way to bring terrorism to Europe is to send troops to fight
Muslims for the Americans. Whether Gates will get the German and French soldiers
that he so desperately needs depends on whether the U.S. can give the German and
French leaders, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, enough billions of dollars
to divide among their parties to embolden them to override public opinion and
send their soldiers to die for U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
Gates told Europe that NATO's survival is at stake: "We must not we
cannot become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who
are not." In a rare bit of honesty for an American government official,
Gates admitted at the NATO conference in Munich last week that Europeans'
anger at the U.S. over Iraq is the reason Europe won't send enough troops
to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, thus putting what Gates disingenuously
called "the international mission in Afghanistan" at risk of failure.
The Afghanistan "mission," like the Iraq "mission," was
a mission for U.S. and Israeli hegemony. The official reason for invading Afghanistan
was 9/11 and the alleged refusal of the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with Europe, NATO, or any "international
mission." The official reason for invading Iraq was alleged, but nonexistent,
weapons of mass destruction that allegedly threatened America another,
but more deadly, 9/11 in the making according to the Bush regime.
If the U.S. now needs foreign troops to save its bacon in these two lost wars,
it should demand them from Israel. Israel is why the U.S. is at war in the Middle
East. Let Israel supply the troops. The neocons who dominated the Bush regime
and took America to illegal wars are allied with the extreme right-wing government
of Israel. The goal of neoconservatism is to remove all obstacles to Israeli
territorial expansion. The Zionist aim is to grab the entirely of the West Bank
and southern Lebanon, with more to follow later.
Remember "mission accomplished"? Remember all the strutting neocons
with their promises of a "cakewalk war"? Remember all the ignorant
bragging about having "defeated the Taliban"? All of these lies were
designed to tie American down in interminable wars in the Middle East for Israel's
benefit. There is no other reason for Bush's invasions. We know for certain
that Bush and his entire administration lied through their teeth about the Taliban
and about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
What a total crock of ignorance and deception the Bush regime represents. Bush,
defeated in Iraq, defeated in Afghanistan, with Pakistan crumbling in front
of his eyes, is now reduced to begging the French, whom it was such grand sport
for his neocon officials to denigrate, to send soldiers to save his ass in Afghanistan.
What a laughing stock Bush has made of America. What ruination this utter idiot
and his supporters have brought to America. What total traitors the neoconservatives
are. Every last one of them should be immediately arrested for high treason.
Neonconservatives are America's greatest enemies, and they control our
government! All Americans have to show for six years of Bush's "war
on terror" is an incipient police state.
Now standing in the wings is mad John "Hundred-Year War" McCain.
Will the American electorate wipe out the Republican Party before this insane
party wipes out America?