Today Col. Pat Lang writes about the Presidents insistence that the war in Iraq has everything to do with the bigger picture; the Global War on Terror(ism). Of course his claim to this is very weak and only accepted by the ignorant and those who have something at stake. Mr. Bush falls into both categories.

Lang writes

The president's rationale for intervention in Iraq has disintegrated into progressively more embarrassing disarray. WMD? Out. AQ-Saddam Alliance? Out. Fight them there rather than in Cleveland? Madrid and London pretty much defeat that argument. Fighting Terrorism wherever we find it? The number of lethal terrorist incidents is dramatically up the last two years. What is left? What is left is the assertion (made yesterday) that Iraq is THE central battlefield in the war against religious fanatics (now specifically Islamic) who are the most fell enemy the human race has faced in millennia, and who threaten the very existence of life as we know it. It is interesting if a few thousand jihadis from 3rd world countries are that potent. Interesting.

In any event, this assertion is the president's last ditch defense against those [who] wish him ill as well as those afflicted with sadness because more marines and soldiers are reporting for duty in heaven every day.

If the majority of the insurgents are Iraqis fighting us for specifically Iraqi reasons, then the president's argument over Iraq falls to bits. He doesn't have many more places of refuge in his rhetoric.

Indeed. Yesterday Mr. Lang had some flames for the present class of Military generals, let us read

There a lot of generals out there who are scared silly of Rumsfeld and Bush and would never talk to me in [public] for fear that Rummy might find out. Warriors? A lot of them are reading this now. My father was a tough old soldier, rather like one of the senior sergeants in "From Here to Eternity." He retired as an officer, but in his heart he was always a sergeant major. He told me often that whenever I might be tempted to trust a general officer I should remember how he "got to be one." There are generals whom I admire. You know who you are, but the craven behavior of present day generals is depressing. Why has no one resigned in the face of stupidity on both the strategic and tactical level? Why?

There are a lot of people out there in "cloud cuckoo land" who would like to "turn Iraq into a glassy parking lot." That would work, but we are not going to do that. The American people will not allow that. That being the case, let us all think positively about solutions for this awful dilemma that we have made for ourselves. Above all, remember that "Specialist Snuffy Smith" of the Arkansas National Guard or "Lance Corporal Jones" of the 1st Marine Regiment were sent there by the government that we elected. They did not pick this war or this enemy and they only volunteered once, when they joined up.

I agree, if one more person says I don't support the troops I'm going to... well I'm not going to do anything, but inform them that supporting the troops and supporting those who command them and those very commands are two very different things. I think it is scary state of our nation when not one person in the armed forces has expressed outrage at the course this country took towards war. Lang speaks of fear of Rummy, Bush, et cetera. This fear is a sign a horrible things to come if a change is not made soon.

Juan Cole adds another post to his Arguing with Bush series. It is long, but a must read. Let's take a look...

Of course Bush used 11 September 2001 as his theme, making the war on Iraq necessary and just... to which Cole writes

September 11 was a horrible moment that traumatized all Americans and killed nearly 3,000 persons. I myself had two cousins in the Pentagon that day. But it had nothing, repeat, nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq.

Bush then mentions some of the other terrorist attacks (most of them after September 11 and therefore theoretically preventable if Bush had put real resources into fighting al-Qaeda instead of running off to tangle with Baathists in Iraq.)

too much to paste it all go read it, he makes some strong point. He (Cole) and Lang deserve much credit, they are both experts on the subject.

note: emphasis and spelling corrections were made to Col. Lang's writing. See his site for original


Posted by Geoff