The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> United States

Posted by Alexander (Guest) - Wednesday, October 29 2003, 17:50:37 (EST)
from 65.33.93.139 - 139.93.33.65.cfl.rr.com

Commercial -

Windows XP -

Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

After yet another bloody day in Iraq, US President George Bush dropped his enthusiastic message that the latest wave of attacks was evidence of just how much "progress" was being made in bringing freedom to the country.

Bush's Democratic opponents had been scathing when he proffered this view on Monday following the death of nearly 40 Iraqis and one American in a wave of suicide bombings that also left about 230 wounded. "If this is progress, I don't know how much progress we can take," Senator Tom Daschle retorted.

In a hastily called news conference, Bush instead stressed that the US would not be defeated by terrorists. "Basically, what they're trying to do is cause people to run," Bush said, adding: "They're not going to intimidate America, and they're not going to intimidate the brave Iraqis who are actively participating in securing the freedom of their country".

Perhaps not. But many in Washington are now asking the question that was left hanging before the war. When do the troops come home? Or, does Bush have an exit strategy?

advertisement

advertisement

The bombing of the International Red Cross, like the earlier bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, was designed to undermine international support for the US, to isolate it as the occupying force. The wave of bombings against police stations is aimed at disrupting US plans to hand over security to Iraqis.

The weekend attack on the Al Rasheed Hotel, the home of many occupation officials in the so-called secure Green Zone, also struck right at the heart of the occupation itself. That the US Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq policy, was in the hotel, was an added coup for the assailants.

"We are at war in Iraq", said Richard Holbrooke, president Bill Clinton's UN ambassador, voicing an opinion that is beginning to reverberate here. "You cannot do nation-building with a country at war."

The problem for Bush is that his Iraq strategy is based on trying to nation-build while fighting the growing insurgency.

Public support in Iraq for the US-led occupation is split, according to a survey done with the help of the conservative International Republican Institute. The poll, reported by The Washington Times, found that while a narrow majority still supported the presence of coalition forces, two-thirds of Iraqis felt their country was occupied rather than liberated.

Six months after the war was said to be over, US military casualties, like civilian casualties, are mounting daily, with 217 US soldiers killed in that time bringing the total since the war began to 355. More than 1730 US soldiers have been wounded.

These numbers will become a serious political liability for Bush as he enters an election year. So, despite all the strong words about not running out of Iraq, some Democrats say they will not be surprised to see Bush declare next year that enough "progress" has been made to start pulling large numbers of US forces out, whatever the consequences.

---------------------

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:
No replies.

Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/msword, application/x-gsarcade-launch, application/vnd....
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-length: 3466
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf/rkvsf_core.php?.1djt.
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)