[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Okay, sure.

“Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front.”
— George Bush

“Don’t you tell me not to worry about bin Laden
Have you forgotten?”
— Darryl Worley

For the record: no, I haven’t forgotten. I remember quite distinctly where I was and what I was feeling that day. I remember thinking that we needed to find the people responsible and do something about it. I still think that. I hope that, someday, we remember that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. I hope that the White House will someday devote some time to reminding people who our enemy was and is.

We are fighting a war built on lies. Bush took 9/11 and turned it into an excuse for carrying out a plan he’d built well before that tragic day. As a result, our military is overextended and our world credibility is slipping. We are unable to reduce the North Korean threat; only this week we’ve learned that they’ve developed longer range missiles sufficient to reach the heartland of America.

We are not winning the war in Afghanistan. We’re certainly not losing, and the Taliban isn’t in power, but until the country is stable I don’t see how we can claim to have won. We have a smattering of troops in that country, because there aren’t any more available. Contrary to pre-war claims, Iraq really has consumed all of our available military strength.

I remember that we have provided Osama bin Laden with an opportunity to do something he could not do in the year after 9/11: namely, kill Americans. By putting our troops in Iraq, we have provided him with targets he could not have otherwise reached. Consider this. Between 9/11 and the occupation of Iraq, there were no American deaths at the hands of Al Qaeda. Since Bush declared combat operations over, we’re seeing terrorists killing Americans on a weekly basis.

But has Bush forgotten all this? Apparently so.

Comments

[carneggy.livejournal.com]

mm, the only exception I take to your rant is the thought that 'more troops aren't available' to be in Afghanistan.

They certainly *are* available; the US is sending soldiers home from Iraq and has been for a while, and is petitioning allies to send troops not so they can be sent to other places (like Afghanistan) but so they can be sent home.

If we *really* wanted to, reservists and/or regular troops could easily be sent there.

But we don't really want to; for a number of reasons including the fact that we don't want to keep the reservists active just to send them to try to police a place where no clear-cut victory will quickly happen. The military certainly doesn't want people at home going 'why are the reserves there, we haven't caught Bin Laden or stopped terrorism!' on a daily basis.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we do have more available military strength, but using it would require sacrifices on the home front, and would lead more people to wonder about the reasons for using the military.