Korean Job Discussion Forums

[igotthisguitar]

After Five Years In Iraq, Bush Heils 'Strategic Victory'

Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Wednesday March 19 2008
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Wednesday March 19 2008.
It was last updated at 14:57 on March 19 2008.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2008/mar/12/iraqinvasion

President George Bush showed no sign of regret today when he marked the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by declaring that the costs in terms of lives and upheaval had been worth it ... and that retreat would threaten both security and the world economy.

He claimed his strategy adopted last year of increasing the number of US troops in Iraq had been a triumph.

"The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around � it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror," he said.

It was his most upbeat assessment of Iraq since his famous "mission completed" speech on board a US aircraft carrier in May 2003.

Speaking at the Pentagon, he said: "No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure � but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.

"If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate � and Iraq could descend into chaos. Al-Qaida would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones � fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq's borders, with serious consequences to the world economy."

The exact number of Iraqi dead is "unknown" but estimates run to the hundreds of thousands.

The US military death toll stands at 3,990, up from 3,000 just over a year ago, with 29,395 wounded.

Bush launched the war with a surprise air strike aimed at taking out Saddam Hussein, who was believed, wrongly, to be hiding at a farm outside Baghdad. It was a time of high confidence in the White House, with the hawks and neo-conservatives sure that their project of establishing Iraq as a model of democracy in the Arab world would prevail.

But Bush spoke today with most of the original cast long gone; the most prominent being the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz.

Public support in the US for the war has dissipated considerably. The two Democratic candidates for the White House, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have both promised to begin withdrawing troops next year ... if elected. The Republican candidate, John McCain, who visited Iraq this week, has committed himself to keeping the US in Iraq for 100 years ... if necessary.

Bush acknowledged the divisions in the US in his speech. "Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting � whether the fight is worth winning � and whether we can "win" it. The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision � and this is a fight America can and must win."

He claimed that the "surge", which last year saw the number of US troops in Iraq raised by 30,000, had been a triumph.

"For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al-Qaida rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al-Qaida out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network."

In words addressed to Clinton and Obama, he said:

"The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable � yet some in Washington still call for retreat. War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq � so now they argue the war costs too much. In recent months we have heard exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/usa.iraq

[khyber]

Really, how people can still support this twit is a bit beyond me; at least when it comes to this war.

Beyond comprehension.

[spliff]

It does seem to have been a great success. We now have an increased hedge in the ME and soon will have the opportunity to expand. McCain will continue this strategy once he's elected.

[Leonidas]

Further proof that Bush is a moron

[bacasper]

[igotthisguitar]

[catman]

[Funkdafied]

[some waygug-in]

...you forgot liar.

This war was never intended to be a success. It was supposed to be a complete fiasco in order to justify keeping a huge US base in Iraq, a continuing "war on terror", continuing government monies being directed and mis-directed towards arms manufacturers, war scams and the eventual crash of the US economy.

Once the dollar crashes, they will then have an excuse to bring in the new

"Amero" currency, and completely destroy any chance that America will ever recover as a nation state.

If you doubt this, just ask Joo. I'm sure he'll tell you that everything is wonderful.

[bacasper]

[spliff]

[some waygug-in]

I know that you want to...


just keep trying. You'll make it someday.

[igotthisguitar]

[Adventurer]

I think the concept of success in this case is relative. Iraq was successful for whom in this world? I don't think I would say the American middle class benefited from the almost trillion dollar bill for a war after being misled. It is one thing if the war didn't cost so much and Iraq won't require a military presence for other few more years. Who has benefited? Well, the Shiites and Kurds have benefited so far, and, possibly, some Sunni Arab sheikhs who didn't have much power in a long time now have some power. Iraq may come out the winner, but so much has been sacrificed by the American people for the war. Hans Blix said it was a mistake. I agree with him, but I don't agree that soft diplomacy would have done much with Saddam, and the Iraqis might be better off in the long-run though Blix doesn't say that. I do have a lot of respect for people like Blix and Halliday.

[bacasper]