The Guardian of London told its readers in a July 4, 2016, editorial: “We remember the Battle of the Somme as a futile and bloody disaster: around 300,000 men were killed over a period of six months. Casualties were almost evenly divided: 165,000 Germans may have died, and 145,000 English and French troops; all to shift the frontline six miles across the mud. The news of the latest car bomb in Baghdad, where at least 150 people were killed as they filled the evening streets for an Iftar meal in the middle of Ramadan, is reminder that the 13 years’ war that followed our invasion there has killed as many people – most of them civilians – as died on the allied side at the Somme.” Read it here.
Recently in Iraq War Debate Category
A Knight Ridder Newspapers and the Chicago Tribune article published in the Seattle Times under the headline "Bush winds up campaign to counter Iraq criticism" notes that "In the latest example of a broader White House campaign to rescue his second term," USA President George W. Bush "on Wednesday [December 14, 2005] wrapped up a series of speeches about Iraq by defending the 2003 invasion despite erroneous prewar intelligence about weapons of mass destruction."
"It's true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," [Mr.] Bush said omitting that he and top aides had ignored warnings from midlevel intelligence agents that some of the evidence was suspect then quickly added that he has no regrets about his decision to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein," the report says. "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place."
So he admits again that he lied. We were initially told it was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It is obvious that Mr. Bush's sees nothing wrong with a predominantly Christian nations invading a Muslim nation to impose that Christian nations way of life on the Muslim nation and nations in the region. What if another nation or a combination of nations announce that it would invade the U.S. for a similar reason? Just asking.
By the way, Mr. Bush ended his campaign to shore up his Iraq policy on the same day Iraqi politicians ended their parliamentary campaigns. Is that a coincidence? I doubt it.
"On the eve of Thursday's [December 15, 2005] parliamentary elections in Iraq, President George W. Bush did something he rarely likes to do: He admitted a mistake. Sort of," according to a Newsweek column by Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey headlined "It's Going to Take a While."
Mr. Bush also used the same old justification for going to war, none of which holds up to strict scrutiny.
During a December 14, 2005 speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. U.S. President George W. Bush stuck to his long-held position that he invaded Iraq because former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was threat to U.S. national security, among other things. Saddam was no threat. It's all in Mr. Bush's mind. Here's a White House transcript of the speech.
Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it. President George W. Bush, all war-party Democrats and right-wing talking heads should keep this in mind when they speak about continuing the war in Iraq until the United States obtains "victory." But what does victory mean? In fact, President Bush's quest for the holy grail of tactical "victory" in Iraq will likely end in strategic defeat. This paradox is simple: the most likely scenario for "victory" or is it defeat? is a somewhat stable Shiite-dominated federated government that will closely ally itself with Iran and its foreign-policy goals. This realization has hit some American policy makers, but the proposals to avoid this outcome seem more suited to an X-Box video game than to reality.
The most recent player in virtual-reality policy making is Wesley Clark, former NATO commander and Democratic presidential candidate. In a December 6th op-ed piece in The New York Times reminiscent of similar equally enlightening pieces telling us how to avoid defeat in Vietnam, General Clark offers his military and political fantasy about how to avoid this outcome. To his credit, General Clark recognizes that "staying the course" as President Bush advocates means a government closely aligned with Iran. He then opines, however, that a rapid departure will limit America's ability to prevent this outcome, but his proposed plan to avoid this is patently unrealistic.
General Clark envisions a new military and political strategy. Militarily, he wants U.S. forces to back up Iraqi forces to close off not just the border with Syria but also the border with Iran, in addition to training Iraqi forces and to pacifying insurgent Sunni areas. Fat chance this, especially in preventing Iranian influence in the southeast. He then wants the Iraqi government to get rid of the armed Shiite militias. How he expects to do this without provoking a war-within-a-war between the U.S. and Shiite forces is not explained.
Politically, General Clark calls for the Iraqi government emerging from the December 15th elections to change the Constitution to make oil revenues the property of the central government and not the provinces. In addition, the Constitution should be amended to prevent the emergence of an autonomous Shiite region in the south. General Clark wants to stop Iran's "meddling" in Iraqi affairs “ but not America's"meddling of course.
While General Clark has clearly seen where events in Iraq are leading, his plan to prevent this is so obviously flawed that it seems likely President Bush cannot prevent the emergence of an Iraqi government closely allied with Iran. Moreover, this Iraqi government will use American lives to pacify their Sunni enemy, and then give us the boot. We will know more about how General Clark's strategy will work after the December 15th elections in Iraq. Stay tuned.
Senator Barack Obama (Democrat of Illinois] told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board on December 5, 2005:
It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear succinct message: `Let's bring our troops home [from Iraq]. It's certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now, but whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is.At least he's honest about it. As for me, I want my niece and all U.S. soldiers in Iraq to come home immediately.
See "Obama: Iraq war splits Democrats" for the Tribune's report on their interview with the junior senator from Illinois.