To Be or Not to Be

- BLOGFEST 2005!
Because sometimes we're just
too lazy to write a real article...

- QUOTE OF THE DAY
by Ken Shade

HOME

Message Board

CURRENT COLUMNS
     - Editor's Corner
     - Blogfest 2005
     - Commentary
     - Commentary Too
     - Down The Middle
     - Faulking Around
     - Global Warning
     - This guy walks into a bar...
     - Investing 101
     - Faulking Opinions
     - Off The Rail
     - Words

ARCHIVES

LINKS

CONTACT US

Search the Faulking Truth:

`Commentary` - Oct 22, 2006 - `Printable Version`
- To Be or Not to Be
by Down the Middle

     From the very beginning, there has been a strong element of resistance to this Administration’s pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, ranging from retired and active duty generals to the seemingly powerless citizen opposition. Unfortunately, the perceived majority of the country…or at least, the actual majority of the Congress was convinced of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein’s, still undetected weapons of mass destruction. But after three years of ever increasing American casualties and the run-a-way billions of American tax dollar expenditures, even a large percentage of two-time Bush voters have had enough.

     With numerous reports of a resurgent Taliban and growing disillusionment among the British officer corps in Afghanistan, as well as the enlisted men serving under them…and last week’s, much-ballyhooed, mass explosion at the main US ammo dump, in Iraq, which was reported to have killed scores of Iraqi National Guard and rumored to have also killed several US personnel, the voters of both Western combatants are reaching the point of total frustration with the war effort.

     As dissenting voices grow louder with every casualty report and Congressional elections only weeks away, Republican incumbents are becoming increasingly desperate for new plan of action that will maintain a manageable political position…and without conceding defeat at the hands of the insurgents.

     At the behest of President Bush, former Secretary of State James Baker, has formed a committee to find an acceptable remedy to the rapidly deteriorating situation.

     “Our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run’”, he recently told ABC.

     While the wishful anti-war faction is hedging their bets on total withdrawal, Mr. Baker’s commission will more than likely temper that emotion with only a partial withdrawal of US forces…from the streets into the fortified defenses of American bases, within the country, itself. The change in strategy would allow US forces to disengage the street-fighting militias, boosting voter confidence while saving US casualties. Iraqi soldiers would be pushed to the forefront, while US forces would hold vital areas and move only to support Iraqi forces, when necessary.

     Unfortunately, in their zeal to conquer Iraq, the Administration failed to listen to our best and most realistic war planners, who either advised going in, 300,000 strong…or not going at all. There was never any doubt that US forces could destroy the Iraqi Army, in the field…but not having to deal with a determined insurgency was just wishful thinking.

     Some will look upon this move as a winding down of the war…but that is not the case. Not only will we be in Iraq for any foreseeable future but we will eventually be expanding the war {air strikes} to Iran and elsewhere. That has been the plan all along…and it still is.

Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).

Commentary - Oct 22, 2006 - Printable Version- To Be or Not to Be by Down the Middle

`Commentary` - Oct 22, 2006 - `Printable Version`
- To Be or Not to Be
by Down the Middle