Now let's see, General McChrystal wants another 20,000 troops for Afghanistan, where we are going to stay either for several more years or several more decades, depending on whether you believe the US military or the British military. Ultimately, with contractors and support troops in the Indian Ocean and central Asia, this will give us well over 100,000 troops fighting or supporting the Afghan-Pakistan war.
At the same time, the Obama administration is scaling back any thought that we will actually start withdrawing troops from Iraq prior to the 30 January 2010 election. We'll have about 130,000 troops there--so that means we will have (again considering support units based in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf) closer to 200,000 folks in that region.
That's naught, naught, carry the naught, and--oh shit, Uncle Jed--we've got well over a quarter-million Americans fighting two different wars, neither of which is going very well at the moment.
Oh--and before I forget--the Pentagon has now revised upward the force we intend to leave in Iraq permenantly from 50,000 to "50,000 to 75,000" and has used some careful language to indicate that they will have combat duties:
The strangest part of all this is that even though American support for remaining in Afghanistan is tanking, and most people have been deluded into believing we are actually withdrawing from Iraq, the MSM has completely failed to cover the story of our continuing wars.
Perhaps it is because many of our liberal/progressive only really hate imperial wars when they don't control the White House and the Congress?
At the same time, the Obama administration is scaling back any thought that we will actually start withdrawing troops from Iraq prior to the 30 January 2010 election. We'll have about 130,000 troops there--so that means we will have (again considering support units based in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf) closer to 200,000 folks in that region.
That's naught, naught, carry the naught, and--oh shit, Uncle Jed--we've got well over a quarter-million Americans fighting two different wars, neither of which is going very well at the moment.
Oh--and before I forget--the Pentagon has now revised upward the force we intend to leave in Iraq permenantly from 50,000 to "50,000 to 75,000" and has used some careful language to indicate that they will have combat duties:
Gen. Brown also hinted that the August 2010 goal had been significantly revised, however. Whereas before President Obama had planned to leave up to 50,000 troops “indefinitely” beyond the official end to combat missions, she suggested the target level was now “50,000 to 75,000 troops.” Furthermore, the remaining troops “would pick up additional duties from departing troops.”
The strangest part of all this is that even though American support for remaining in Afghanistan is tanking, and most people have been deluded into believing we are actually withdrawing from Iraq, the MSM has completely failed to cover the story of our continuing wars.
Perhaps it is because many of our liberal/progressive only really hate imperial wars when they don't control the White House and the Congress?
Comments
First, people need to be reminded that the Iraq pull out was negotiated by the Bush Administration (SOFA Agreement) with the Iraqis in 2008.
Secondly, when the Bush Administration laid out the plan, they were only talking about leaving 35,000 troops in Iraq, past the 2011 "official end to combat missions" not the 50-75k that we're hearing about today.
Yet Cindy Sheehan sat virtually alone at Martha's Vineyard this past week protesting the Iraq War.