So they win Fallujah - then what?
MSN/Slate are running an article on the battle for Fallujah, which is in full swing at the moment. The author of the article, Fred Kaplan, takes a critical position, surmising that Bush will use any half-way convincing “win” to justify pulling the US troops out of Iraq as soon as the Iraqi elections have taken place – assuming the elections are not a complete fiasco.
But what is interesting, is that according to the US National Public Radio, the often cited combined US and Iraq troops which are involved on the current assault are composed of some 10-15 thousand US troops and a mere 170 Iraqi troops. It seems that originally, 500 Iraqi troops should have been deployed alongside the US troops (which is a pretty low number too), but the remaining 330 deserted before the operation started. These were members of the 36th Special Operations battalion – the elite of Iraq’s new security forces. Obviously the Iraqis will not be in a position to take over responsibility for their own security any time soon. It looks pretty clear to me, that the most important role of the Iraqi troops is as an alibi for the USA, so they can imply it is not unilateral US action.
The other interesting point in the article was a link to the New York Times, listing the countries that have now pulled out of the Coalition of the Willing or announced plans to significantly reduce or withdraw their troops completely within the coming months. Quite a long list, leaving the US looking increasingly isolated in Iraq.
At the same time, the Guardian reports that since the Iraqi war started 19 months ago, 57 journalists have been killed in the fighting. This compares with 60 journalists killed in the whole of the Vietnam war (approx 17 years, depending on exactly how you define the period of war).
November 12th, 2004 at 15:11:58
Yes but. Let’s not be too Moore/Pilger/Todd here. It’s dangerously diverting to analyze and expose what is really going on. Yes of course the Americans are going it alone. Of course the whole thing is illegal. Obviously these countries are harmless. Yes militarily Israel should be a higher priority. Yes Africa should be sorted out. The question should be ‘why’. Why is America doing this? What does America hope to gain from this? To me, America is years ahead of the rest of the world in most respects – good and bad. There is an agenda. Hitler looked to the future and it frightened him. He had to get seriously radical to lay the foundations for a thousand year empire. America is the closest thing to an empire on the planet now. Looking at the people – slaves to the free market mechanism – being drained of meaningful tradition, community, shared values and faith have everything to fear from Islam and Judaism. Oil has a big role of course. The oil must be secured. The military was designed to defend the country and its interests. By definition there is nothing worth fighting for more than oil.It is simply carrying out its mandate. The idea that America has to invade other countries to maintain itself is repugnant – but only recently. This was a matter of course less than 200 years ago. The chiller is: Who’s going to be around in 1000 years? The Americans?
November 13th, 2004 at 07:11:04
>>>The chiller is: Whos going to be around in 1000 years? The Americans?
I don’t think so.
Bush is likely to run their economy into the ground, given four more years. Look at the massive budget deficit he’s run up already. And as consumer of 25% of the world oil supply, trying to secure the oil sources is actually short sighted – he needs to cut consumption now, so that they don’t hit the wall in however many years time, when oil runs out. Analysts say oil production is probably peaking now, so if the US doesn’t start becoming more energy-efficient very soon, it’s not going to make much difference that they control the production. (And looking at the mess in Iraq, is he going to control the production anyway?).