My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people.
Actually this is not true and while it sounds good, it sets a fairly dangerous precedent. Every single President swears an oath of office which comes directly from Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.". As I have written about before, there seems to be conclusive evidence that George Bush has indeed failed to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The military's primary role is not to promote peace but to wage war on enemies. I will say however that some Special Forces do an admirable job working on promoting understanding and cooperation, which is a form of promoting peace. Most of this work however has been done in Afghanistan, which is a country conspicuously absent from Bush's address. Is the United States no longer at war in Afghanistan? Are American troops not being attacked and killed weekly in Afghanistan? Is that entire war over?
This seems to mix a number of messages but seems to define that the primary goal of the American military is to fight a "global war on terror". First of all, "terror" is an emotion and is not resolved by soldiers and guns but by facing one's fears. "Terrorism" on the other hand is the use of violence to "terrorize" a civilian population to achieve a political aim.
By using "terror" however mixed with the bogeyman "September 11", Bush is not making a linguistic error. Many people in the United States became extremely fearful on September 11 and Bush is addressing that sentiment by implying that the combined military might of the U.S. is now addressing that feeling of fear.
The "terrorists who attacked us" are largely believed to be Al-Qaeda. These are not the same terrorists "we face" in Iraq. They might be considered the terrorists "we face" in Afghanistan and Pakistan but these two countries are never mentioned in this address. There is widespread agreement that Al-Qaeda had no connection whatsoever with Iraq or the Iraqi government before September 11, 2001 and any involvement or participation in Iraq today is minimal at best.
Whomever these terrorists are he's referring to, it seems to me they've already succeeded in making the Middle East a "grim image of tyranny and oppression". It's certainly true in key U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt as the American State Dept's own reports show. And Iraq itself, even the "sovereign Iraqi government" is extremely tyrannical and oppressive. Click here to read Human Rights Watch's 94 page report about how "unlawful arrest, long-term incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment of detainees (including children) by Iraqi authorities have become routine and commonplace".
As for "exporting terror", terrorism tactics only work when the civilian population is sufficiently cowed to clamor for a political change. The terrorist attack in Oklahoma City was not "successful" because it did not effect any (significant) changes in the federal government, the target of the attack. However the terrorists of 9/11 did succeed in one sense - they effected large-scale changes in restricting the freedom of the American people. If another leader had guided the nation to rebuild its shattered sense of self-confidence and worked together with the nations of the world to devise a strategy that brought more peace and justice to the world then the terrorists of 9/11 would have "failed". As it turned out, most Americans feel more fearful now than ever before and the world at large is becoming increasingly hostile to the United States.
The attacks in those world cities were committed by groups largely unrelated and unconnected to each other, for differing political motives. I could say car thieves continue to steal in cities like Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami and Wilkes-Barre but that doesn't mean they're working together or in conjunction with one another. Terrorism again is using violence to achieve a political aim.
It's interesting to note that the attacks Bush is referring to are largely blamed on Muslim fundamentalist groups against American allies while other terrorist activity is not mentioned. What about terrorist attacks in Colombia? What about the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the inventors of the suicide bomber? What about Kurdish terrorist attacks inside Turkey? What about Chechen terrorist attacks in Beslan, North Ossetia (the single deadliest incident in 2004)? What about terrorist attacks in Abkhazia, Republic of Georgia? What about terrorist attacks in Kashmir? Do these not count?
Ahhh... well the Madrid and Jakarta attacks were against "free societies" so they would "retreat". Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), Bali and Jakarta (Indonesia) and Casablanca (Morocco) are all in countries that could hardly be considered "free societies". These societies are just American allies, and that's why the terrorist attacks there were lumped in with 9/11, so it becomes an "us versus them" mentality. Except of course that the terrorists of 9/11 were connected to organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which again are never mentioned in this address.
As for "taking the fight to the enemy", terrorism has always been most effectively nullified and defeated through law enforcement measures and political dialogue with the disaffected groups who support the radical acts of violence called "terrorism". There's a very tempting fantasy that there are a limited number of terrorists who sit inside underground bunkers, polishing their weapons with an insane glint in their eye and vow to fight to the death. While there may be a handful of such fanatics, terrorism as a whole springs from disaffected groups using violence as a means to achieve a political aim. If other options were available and more likely to succeed, they would choose those options.
Let me put this more simply - if Group A wants to achieve Political Aim B and Option C looks like it has a chance of achieving Political Aim B, they will take Option C every time. "Option C" is often the incarceration and prosecution of the perpetrators of violence in conjunction with negotiations and political dialog with Group A. For every perpetrator of violence there must be a larger Group A which condones, supports and even finances those acts. And Group A's number one desire is the realization of Political Aim B, not some psychopathic love of violence.
Again, it's not very sexy, but terrorist movements have been successfully eradicated through the process of law enforcement and political dialogue. One example is Northern Ireland, a lesser well-known one is Senegal. It isn't as glamorous as fighting a majestic war with fighter planes and guns, but it's far, far more successful in the long run.
If "murdeous ideology" means being a terrorist then yes, the Iraqi terrorists are the same as Al-Qaeda. Otherwise there is absolutely no link between the two.
General Vines is a soldier in the military and his career and training is to use deadly force to defeat an enemy. He should not be expected to formulate diplomatic solutions to complex political problems and it is an intellectual cheat to quote him on such matters.
Again, as I said before, law enforcement and political dialogue is the only realistic solution to defeating terrorism. The military has a role to play in that, entering into hostile areas and capturing particularly dangerous individuals, but this is a form of law enforcement. Simply shooting Iraqis who shoot at Americans in no way, shape or form stops or reduces terrorism.
An analysis of what the Iraqi terrorists are doing shows their primary targets are other Iraqis who collaborate with the United States (and "coalition" forces), whether Iraqi police, Iraqi military or the civilian population which supports an "opposite" group. It is logically absurd to think that these terrorists would go to the United States to attack fellow Iraqis if the American military was not in Iraq.
Actually our mission in Iraq is anything but clear. Hunting down the terrorists? That might be something effective if there were a limited number of terrorists, but that isn't the case. A "terrorist" is born every minute when a member of Group A feels that the only way to achieve Political Aim B is through violence. If Political Aim B was achieved tomorrow, many "terrorists" would lay down their weapons and go back to a normal civilian life. Killing him only angers and solidifies his (or her) supporters in Group A, spawning new members of the group to step forward and use violence to achieve Political Aim B.
There is a large swath of the Iraqi population which feels seriously disenfranchised and some of those people feel that violence is the only way to achieve their goals. Even the Iraqi National Assembly, "democratically elected" members of the "sovereign" government, has many members who feel disenfranchised by the military presence of the United States and want the troops to leave as soon as possible. How can they achieve this Political Aim B, so to speak? If a non-violent method was available and had a chance of succeeding, they would take it.
Iraq today is more violent and more unstable than it was in 1993 when Saddam Hussein was in power. This is empirically evident and therefore the current American policy in Iraq, if the goal is to "remove" a source of violence and instability, is a complete failure.
Where exactly do most Americans see "images" of violence and bloodshed? On television? In newspapers? I don't think I've seen many images of violence or bloodshed in the American media. Mostly what I've seen are billowing clouds of smoke and a few overturned vehicles, which are just a tiny fragment of the violence and bloodshed going on. The more graphic (and representative) images of vioelnce and bloodshed appear on the internet and from non-American media, which most Americans don't see.
The sacrifice most Americans are making is not on the battlefield - the military is a tiny fragment of the population. The sacrifice is instead in money, as in government expenditure, and it is being horrifically squandered. Besides the outrageous cost overruns, payment to private companies for work not performed, enormous no-bid contracts won by political cronies, rotten and inedible food served to troops by contractors, the gigantic sums paid to mercenaries to do a soldier's job and the focus on jails, bases and oil pipelines at the expense of basic infrastructure (electricity, clean drinking water, etc) there are also billions of dollars missing, just vanished into thin air.
The American taxpayer has been asked to make a double sacrifice - first the billions and billions of dollars spent, and then the sacrifice of having much of that money wasted, squandered and outright stolen without accountability.
This could be said equally true about American (and other) foreign contractors aka mercenaries, who are not accountable to either Iraqi or American law and can kill with total impunity.
While I do believe it is true that citizens of countries in the Middle East have come to Iraq to fight, it isn't many. In fact it's only a few hundred (at most) and has almost no significant impact on the war as a whole. The vast majority of people in Iraq committing acts of violence, whether "terrorists" or the thugs in the government, are Iraqi.
Bush here says that the terrorists come from three groups: criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents AND remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. This is extremely significant because in previous speeches, the terrorists were always remnants of the Ba'ath regime, longing to bring back the old order where they were bosses. Now it seems Bush is admitting that there is a separate group, called "Iraqi insurgents", who are not trying to restore the old Ba'ath order at all!
An "insurgent" is someone who is in revolt against an establish government, in this case the combination of the American military and the "elected" Iraqi government. This makes them akin to "rebels", people fighting for a change in government. This is a heck of a lot different than a "terrorist" because rebels/insurgents are members of widespread political movements to use violence to effect a political aim. The men who fought the Battle of Lexington and Concord were "insurgents" and are considered heroes in America because they eventually drove out the military occupatier of the land.
To put it more simply, when the people of Iraq truly feel like their government is in their own hands and responsible to them and is not a puppet or dependent on the United States, all these "insurgents" will no longer have a reason to fight and will go home.
As for "criminal elements", clearly that is a law enforcement issue. I see little evidence that an equitable and responsible law enforcement body is being established in Iraq and therefore "criminal elements" will continue to thrive.
There's so much hogwash in this paragraph I almost don't know where to start. Again, terrorists do not fight because of a "hateful ideology", they fight to achieve a political aim. That political aim might have have elements of a "hateful ideology", but peaceful governments with hateful ideologies have long been strong allies of the United States - Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of this. You'd be hard pressed in fact to find a government with a more hateful, vicious ideology than Saudi Arabia's yet no American troops are fighting there. Why not?
I truly wish that millions of people in the Middle East would be inspired to "claim their liberty", but it's pretty difficult when their oppressive governments are financed by the United States with billions of dollars every year.
And once again I will state this - Iraq was never used as a base to attack America or Americans. Invading his country and killing tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of his people is more likely to engender future generations of Iraqis to attack Americans in retribution, not less.
Wait a second, Osama bin Laden? The man who masterminded 9/11, the real attack against the United States? Why isn't capturing him the "central front" in the war on terrorism? His sidekick, a one-eyed senior citizen, has still never been located. And why is Bush quoting completely unsubstantiated statements by Osama bin Laden? If this doesn't have ominous overtones of Emmanuel Goldstein, I don't know what does.
Osama bin Laden and his associates can, and regularly do, speak for themselves. I don't remember any statements where they enjoined the United States to battle them in Iraq. Of course Al-Qaeda's cause has been greatly helped by the American invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent mistreatment and subjugation of the Iraqi people. But he didn't invite it and it looks like his hateful ideology is gaining in strength and worldwide support. The history books will have to judge, but right now it looks like the Iraqi Occupation will result in "victory and glory" for Al-Qaeda.
We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.
Again, if violence succesfully achieves the Political Aim of Group A, they will continue to pursue it. Only when a viable and more successful alternative is available will they renounce violence. All the military might of the world's armies cannot stop it, no matter how much people sometimes wish that were the case.
As for "broadcasting" beheading of civilians, that's never been done on television. It's only been released on the internet and the commercial media has picked up the story, showing still images and analyzing it. So what role does the commercial media, particularly in the west, play in this? Are they not furthering the aims of the terrorists themselves when they take a posting on an obscure internet site and rebroadcast it to the free world?
The commercial media is just that - it broadcasts news to as wide an audience as possible and makes its profit from selling advertising to the viewers. So NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News and the rest turn a profit when they rebroadcast images from a civilian hostage being beheaded. As bad and loathsome as the terrorists are who kill hostages, there's never been a case where they've sold the video for monetary gain. It takes the media to be that despicable.
Well the war isn't quite over yet, is it? The "transfer of sovereignty" was to a group of Iraqis handpicked by the United States, hardly sovereign in any sense of the word. The coalition might not be "broken" but many members have opted out and even more will be gone by the end of 2005. An Iraqi civil war, if it hasn't begun already, is pretty close. The "free elections" took place under incredibly heavy security and only approximately half of the eligible voting population participated, to say nothing of the lack of international observers and unbiased election procedures. And the Iraqi government, even the one "elected" in January, is there to design a constitution and pave the way for new elections later this year, hardly a fait accompli.
I don't know how many Iraqis have been killed while standing in line to sign up for the police forces and the army, but it's a lot. And many of those who have joined (or tried to) did so because the economy is in shambles and those are among the few jobs which get paid regularly in a timely manner. It's a desperation job that many Iraqis do not want and perform quite badly and many of its members are brutal, oppressive and feared by their neighbors. Neither the police nor the military of Iraq is anything to boast about and there is extensive documentation that they have continued Saddam's policies of torture, mistreatment, beatings and arbitrary arrests.
The "advance of freedom", meaning the military occupation of Iraq, has killed far more "innocent" Iraqis than the terrorists have done. And when your neighbor, brother, father, sister, mother, husband, wife, son or daughter is dead, they're dead, and you will always rememmber who is responsible.
I see Bush here slips in the mention of "Zarqawi", which is part of the American fantasy that Gary Brecher calls the "Mister Big" mentality. It's an alluring fantasy to think that a one-legged man is darting in and out of alleyways all over Iraq, coordinating a massive resistance to the American military using his Dick Tracy walkie-talkie and encrypted messages written in invisible ink. It is however fallacious in the extreme and Brecher says that blaming everything on Zarqawi actually gives a tactical advantage to the terrorists.
In the past year, we have made significant progress. One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people. In January 2005, more than 8 million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair, and took time on -- and took place on time. We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made.
The first paragraph is probably the most disengenous of the entire speech. He is in effect saying that he predicted X, Y and Z and voila, they all came true! Therefore anything he is predicting in this speech is equally likely to be proven true in the future as well.
These predictions of his are just a few among a large handful that didn't come true, including his infamous assertion almost two years ago that "major combat" was over.
As for again appealing to the American people's sympathies because the work is "hard", there is extensive documentation that very little post-invasion planning was done prior to the occupation. Billions of dollars have been squandered and basic infrastructure like electricity, fuel supplies and running water are in worse shape now than they were prior to 2003. I don't know what Bush's definition of "progress" is, but it seems to be inverse to the one in the dictionary.
Yes, I do know that in some isolated incidents and cases, some basic services are just now returning to the levels that existed in Iraq prior to 11 years of brutal sanctions and 2 years of an oppressive military occupation. Talk about damning with faint praise...
Just a year ago, Bush was praising the fact that 84 countries were in the coalition. The number of countries with troops in Iraq has declined, including those who give non-military assistance. And pledging money is not the same as delivering it, as many victims of last year's tsunami know quite well.
And why are donor countries meeting in Jordan next month instead of Iraq? It's because Iraq is too unstable, too chaotic and too violent to hold the meeting there.
Gerhard Schröeder is a lame duck ruler who is not likely to remain in office beyond this autumn. His primary purpose in coming to the White House this week was to lobby for American support in getting Germany a permanent seat on the United Nations' Security Council, which it seems he was unsuccessful at obtaining. Chancellor Schröeder is right in saying that a stable and democratic Iraq is in the interest of the entire world, but that is not the same as endorsing Bush's policies.
The "quality" of the security forces in Iraq is abysmal, both in their ability to fight as well as their ability to conduct law enforcement operations in a legal, fair and just manner. Pinning a badge on a thug makes him a policeman, but that doesn't make him an enforcer of the law.
Actually many Iraqis don't want to be defended by their own "countrymen", especially the ones who make up the police and military. Some Iraqis outright fear the security forces and are incredibly nervous about "Operation Lightning" and the mistreatment many people receive at the hands of the Iraqi National Guard.
Notice Bush said hundreds of "suspected" insurgents. Read the linked Human Rights Watch report about Iraq's security forces and a disturbing pattern emerges where random people are rounded up, branded as terrorists, left to rot in jail for a few days (or weeks), and then let go - just to create the illusion that something is being done. Show me the convictions of these terrorists (after due process of law) and I'll join in your praise of their operations.
Wait a minute, this is the first time Afghanistan is mentioned! The original "War on Terrorism" against the original terrorists! And I hate to say this, but it seems pretty clear that Afghanistan and Pakistan are safe havens for the Taliban today. Don't believe me? Click here for all the articles I've written on the Invincible Taliban.
We've made progress, but we have a lot of -- a lot more work to do. Today Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A large number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We're building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.
A government fighting an organized insurgency is the very definition of a civil war.
I have indeed seen evidence that coalition members have worked to help train Iraqis - much of it being done outside the country as Iraq is too dangerous and unstable. And this is probably the one aspect of this speech which I can fully support, I just wish it had been a higher priority two years ago instead of hamfisted moves like disbanding the entire military in a single day.
Second, we are embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and non-commissioned officers who live, work, and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills, such as urban combat, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.
Are these members of the American or coalition military or highly paid contractors? And how many of these "transition teams" are there? And do any of them teach techniques from the Israeli Army, which would be culturally and ideologically hateful to the Iraqi people/insurgents whom these troops are expected to fight?
The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of Iraqi security forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward, and are now training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened, and their officers grow more experienced. We've learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. And that is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting, and then our troops can come home.
The Iraqi government forces are fighting three groups, as Bush himself said - "criminal elements", insurgents AND terrorists. I wish it were as simple as a small group of people setting off bombs and killing civilians for the senseless thrill of killing, but it's a far more complex scenario and the risk of an outright civil war is quite high. Simplifying the challenges of the Iraqi government is not helpful in the least.
Actually, setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces would be incredibly effective. First, it would put pressure on the American government and military to achieve the desired objectives rather than making vague statements about decades of future troop presence. A far smaller country, Bosnia, is still patrolled by foreign troops more than ten years after the end of hostilities and yet timetables were established, which greatly helped that nation transition from a state of war to that of (limited) domestic governance.
Secondly, a large part of the insurgency is fueled by the perception that the American military occupation of Iraq is indefinite. If political organizations had a timetable of future withdrawal, they could dissuade a large segment of the population to refrain from violence - violence that is perpetrated precisely because they want to end the military occupation of their country. The whole concept of an evil, lurking enemy "waiting out" the United States is a complete and utter fallacy.
This is so disengenous it borders on being an outright lie. The military commanders who have called for more troops have been purged in favor of those who don't. And as many sources have documented, there aren't many more troops to send even if Bush wanted to, not without implementing a draft.
All the Iraqis did at the polls in January was elect people who will set up a democratic system of some sort in the future. There is little to no evidence that a "secure democracy" is in the works or that anyone has a plan to realistically implement it.
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator but he was armed and financed by the United States for a long time. And while his removal from power is welcomed by everyone, I see little evidence that ordinary Iraqis are any less "oppressed" today than they were under his regime.
If this can come true, it will be celebrated and welcomed all over the world and by the Iraqi people. But saying these words is not enough - there must be a plan, an organization, to implement these goals. Having a handpicked government organize elections to create an organization of people to hold future elections is the first step in a long road to achieving these aims.
And what if the Iraqi people don't approve it? What then?
I do believe this paragraph is true. I just fear that the mechanisms to see it happen are not in place, and painting over the realities of Iraq with happy talk about citizens coming together to join a peaceful, cooperative political process isn't helping anyone make clear-sighted decisions.
Libya didn't give up its nuclear and chemical weapons programs because of any fear of a coalition invasion. It was a commercial decision, pure and simple. Libya knew that selling its oil on the open market and not being restricted by sanctions was going to fill its coffers a lot more quickly than stockpiling useless and outdated chemical weapons (like mustard gas). Libya has lost every single war it has fought under Colonel Qaddaffi and those chemical weapons did nothing to help. Libya might have given up its weapons systems but its government continues to be harshly repressive of human rights, including freedom of speech.
They were holding free and democratic elections in Lebanon long before Saddam Hussein was overthrown and the only thing "new" is that some anti-Syrian parties have gained in prominence. One of the political parties in Lebanon is Hizb Allah (Hizbullah), considered to be a terrorist organization by the United States. So when Lebanese citizens vote for Hizb Allah, is that a step forward for freedom or not?
As for elections in the Palestinian Territories, the Bush administration has worked very hard to eliminate political parties' participation that they don't like, particularly Hamas. I don't like Hamas either, but either elections are about voters choosing the parties they want or they aren't democratic.
In Egypt, the Bush administration is backing longtime strongman Hosni Mubarak in his manipulation of the law so that he is virtually guaranteed to be elected president. Recent "reforms" there are nothing more than cosmetic window dressing and do nothing to further a realistic chance for someone to run against Mubarak. And the security forces in Egypt continue to arrest protestors by the thousands because the country has been under martial law for the past 24 years.
And Saudi Arabia, ok, they held a few municipal elections for positions of almost no political power in which only men could vote. Wow, congratulations.
Again, tying in September 11 and Iraq is mendicious and is done only to create an emotional appeal to the occupation of that country. A much more logical and rational choice would be to ask the American people to support the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
I might add here, that all those car bombers, assassins and beheaders ARE shaking the will of the American people and Bush knows it. Americans don't like to see their relatives come home in a bodybag regardless of how they died (whether shot by a man in uniform or not is irrelevant), especially when the reasons they were in Iraq were based on lies.
America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom entrusted to us in a special way, and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.
The occupation of Iraq is now analogous to the War of Independence? Seriously, George Bush just said that? Except in this case, the Americans are the "British" and the Iraqi insurgents are the "Massachussetts Militiamen". The Americans are the ones in uniform, marching in formation, obeying the "rules" of war while the Iraqis are the guerillas, hiding up in the trees, sniping at troops and not wearing uniforms. What irony...
I see the appeal to Christianity here, with the use of the word "evil". If the American people need to spend billions of dollars and send their loved ones to war to fight evil around the world, there's a long list of countries that need invading.
I've visited the site and while it does show admirable examples of neighbors supporting neighbors, it is mainly used as a platform for corporations to spend money as a tax write-off and boost their public image.
And while the troops might appreciate some flag waving and letters, I think the American government should join that sentiment by increasing monies spent on giving care to veterans for after they return from Iraq (and elsewhere). Slashing the budget for Veterans' Affairs is a grave disservice to them and flag waving is just cheap lip service to their sacrifices.
Well I think this is cheap to the point of being contemptuous. It is well-documented that the Bush administration has moved to hide and obscure the bodies of fallen soldiers and has done little publically to show his "grief" at these families' losses. Some people would argue that publically showing his grief for their sacrificies is indecorous - as the leader of the country I think it is his duty to do so. Oh yeah, and quit rubberstamping the condolence letters to the families of fallen soldiers!
This seems to me to be a direct pitch for people to enlist in the military. It is well-documented that enlistment rates are seriously below the necessary quotas and that the level of troops to maintain all of the United States' current missions are dangerously low.
As many have said before me, if enlisting in the military is such a noble pursuit, why do so few members of the families of Congress and the White House serve?
May God bless you all.
Again a reference to September 11, a cheap appeal to sentimentality and a way to prey on people's fears. Our enemies are indeed brutal, but the United States' military is not the only solution, nor is it even the best one. It is simply (an extremely expensive) tool to help defend the United States and Americans - diplomacy, cooperation with other nations and world bodies, and dialogue are also extremely effective and yet sadly neglected.
May God bless all of us... including the people of Iraq, stuck in a sea of chaos, violence and bloodshed with no end in sight.
Pax
