"New Way Forward" Is Still Death & Destruction for the People of the World 

By RJ Schinner & Kenneth J. Theisen, 12/20/06 

In a Tuesday, January 19, 2006 interview with the Washington Post and a recent press conference, President Bush stated that he has asked new Defense Secretary Gates to research an increase in the troop strength of the Army and Marines to fight the "war on terrorism", and also to consider a temporary increase in troops deployed to Iraq.  Bush said he believes he needs to expand the overall size of the U.S. military.  He went on to say, "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace."

"Increased military capacity" will only mean more of this

As this administration has stated repeatedly since 9/11, they view their battle for unchallenged domination of the Middle East as a war on numerous countries and opponents (whether they are terrorists or not) that will last generations.  They are determined not to back down in their efforts, as has been illustrated by Bush's repeated declarations that the US will not leave Iraq until "victory", and the current military build-up towards Iran.  The course of this global conquest has been devastating.  Far from liberating anyone, more than 655,000 people in Iraq have been killed since the war started. Afghanis live in poverty and destruction, with much of the brutal subjugation of women continuing. Moreover this "ideological war" has only inflamed and resulted in more of a following for Islamic fundamentalists.

Military leaders and Democrats have been arguing for increasing the size of the US military for some time now.  Top generals, including Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker in recent Congressional testimony, have warned that the service would "break" without more troops. Colin Powell said on last Sunday's Face the Nation that "the active Army is about broken."

In the Post interview, Bush acknowledged these views when he stated, "I haven't heard the word 'broken', but I've heard the word 'stressed.'...my budgetary requests will reflect what a lot of people in Congress have been saying and in the Pentagon, and that is we need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to" position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war, and this ideological struggle?"

At least some Democratic leaders are on board. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who, as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair in the last election, picked pro-war candidates, said "I am glad he has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces . . . but this is where the Democrats have been for two years".  And the recently released Iraq Study Group Report warns that the strain on the US military in Iraq threatens its ability to quickly respond to "other security contingencies, including those in Iran and North Korea" (pp. 73-77). During the 2004 presidential campaign, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) called for an increase of 40,000 troops in the active duty military.  In a September 25, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Kerry called for the deployment of 5,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

Also on Tuesday, the incoming Democratic House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton spoke favorably of increasing the size of the Army and Marines. He stated that the military is "bleeding" and "we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces."

The army currently has about 507,000 active duty troops and the Marines 180,000.  After September 11 Congress authorized a 30,000 troop increase for the Army as a so-called temporary measure. Officials say they hope to reach total troop strength of 512,000 by 2007 and army commanders hope that level will be a minimum and not a maximum troop level.  In the interview, Bush did not state how much of an increase would take place, but other U.S. officials stated the regime is preparing plans to increase the active-duty military with up to 70,000 additional troops.

In the interview, Bush stated he did not interpret the Democratic congressional election victory as a mandate to halt U.S. involvement in Iraq.  Instead he said he considers the outcome a call to find ways to win in Iraq.  He summed up the war in Iraq as, "We're not winning, we're not losing."  Bush sees the discussion of a possible troop surge in Iraq as one item under consideration to help the U.S. win the war.

But a troop increase would increase the already staggering cost of the war.  The Bush administration is preparing a $100 billion supplemental request for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in fiscal year 2007.  This is in addition to the $70 billion already approved and on top of the regular Pentagon budget.  Since 9/11 more than $500 billion has been spent on the "war on terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush claimed in the interview that he has not yet decided on a new Iraq strategy and that he awaited the new Defense Secretary's return from Iraq.  He stated, "I need to talk to him when he gets back. I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out"will see"a new way forward."

In a related development, the U.S. Central Command has just made a request to Secretary Gates for another Navy aircraft carrier strike force group to move to the Persian Gulf.  One is already there.  Such a carrier group would pose an additional threat in Iraq as well as to Iran if approved.
Increasing the size of the US military - either in Iraq or permanently - will only bring about more suffering for people in Iraq and around the world.  We don't need more troops, a more "reasonable" military strategy, and nor should it give us a sigh of relief that "Bush is finally listening to his generals".

 Quote this article on your site

Share Link: