Iraq War a Victory in War on Terror - Bush
by Liam Bailey
2008-03-19 19:53:59 **news**
I read an article today about how America's new offensive approach in Iraq, relentlessly taking the fight to the insurgents, and allowing them no time to rest or territory to control, is actually proving to be successful. In the article, BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson said that it wouldn't be long before Bush announced it as a victory. He was right. In his speech to mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war Bush announced that the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has brought about a major strategic victory in the broader War on Terror.
The speech comes as Bush and Republican Presidential candidates fend off attacks from all sides about the spiralling cost of the Iraq war, which, according to Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could hit 3 trillion US Dollars by the time you count veterans health care and the full cost of damage to the economy.
Hilary Clinton was quick to point out all the other things the money, which she puts at 1 trillion US Dollars, could have been spent on, like health care for the 47 million Americans without medical insurance, making university education more affordable, and tackling the growing housing crisis. Barack Obama accused the President of allowing Ideology to override pragmatism, and his cabinet of weighing public opinion above solid intelligence.
Their cries were echoed, and a few more added -- a lot less politely -- by the thousands of protestors, 32 of whom were arrested outside the Internal Revenue Service building, where Bush was giving his speech.
Bush's defence was to call the estimates overblown, and say: "The costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."
He then went on to repeat the same party lines we have been hearing for the past four years. That the US battle in Iraq is the reason there have been no further attacks in the U.S. His exact words were:
"The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad want to murder the innocent in the streets of American cities." And "Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely we will face this enemy here at home."
It pains me to say there is validity in his claims. It is a lot easier for the terror groups to recruit people to attack American soldiers than civilians, and it is also easier to mount attacks in Iraq than in the U.S.
So, the US are making small gains in Iraq after five years, just about a year less than World War II lasted, and after 3000 US troops have died. I wonder if I will still be reading and writing articles like this after ten years and 6000 US military deaths, after 15 years and 9000 US soldiers have died, all the while the Iraqi death toll will have went well into the millions.
I don't know if the situation would be better after a US withdrawal, but I do hope that this example forces all world governments to think twice, and never to launch an unnecessary imperialistic war again.
