First, Reuters:
Here's the lede Yahoo goes with from a longer Reuters story.
-
Two months after President Bush declared major combat over in Iraq, the United States needs more troops on the ground and should accept any foreign help it can get to crush resistance and start real nation-building, military analysts said on Tuesday.
How devastating is that? l. Pentagon did underestimate troops needed on the ground. 2. Adminstration did make a mistake in cold-shouldering all who didn't fall in line behind our parade.3. We're way behind schedule on everything.
Okay, that's a harsh, one-sided oversimplification.
The longer Reuter's article, an excellent compilation of quotes and questions from ex-Military officers and defense experts, like retired Army Gen. Dan Christman, a former Pentagon planner, is quietly just as devastating.
-
"Our army is absolutely stretched thin and we ought to be reaching out to all of those countries who are offering to send troops -- the Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, the Indians, and NATO -- I'm not sure why we have been reluctant to pick up a NATO offer," said the retired general.
NATO's role in Iraq so far has been agreeing to provide logistics help for up to 7,500 Polish troops scheduled to deploy to Iraq this summer.
Christman said the presence of other flags would boost U.S. legitimacy during the crucial reconstruction phase, which should focus on the economy and getting oil pumping again.
How many Nato troops? According to Retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Boyd...several hundred thousand. That may be a high estimate, but it still says, 'what the hell was Rummy thinking?'
And there's this from Marcus Corbin, a senior defense analyst at the Center for Defense Information, on the need for more Iraqi involvement:
-
"The problem from the point of view of the Iraqis is that whatever limited authority they thought they were getting is being pulled back. Their sense is that things are going backward rather than forward," said Corbin.
Anthony Cordesman even makes an appearance.
Here's how Rove/Bush handled this increasing clamor today, when Bush spoke in the East Room of the White House on the 30th anniversary of the all-volunteer U.S. force, with a backdrop of 30 year men and women who'd chosen to re-enlist.
They ignored it. They focused instead on the President's stalwart determination to maintain our tropps there..."to keep the nation from falling back into the hands of Saddam Hussein loyalists."
-
"They have attacked coalition forces and they're trying to intimidate Iraqi citizens," Bush said. "These groups believe they have found an opportunity to harm America, to shake our resolve in the war on terror, and to cause us to leave Iraq before freedom is fully established."
"They are wrong and they will not succeed."
(edit)
"But there will be no return to tyranny in Iraq," Bush said. "And those who threaten the order and stability of that country will face ruin as surely as the regime they once served."
Always the same. A single evil other, this time, "those who would...,"a single overstated, undercomprehended objective.
Rummy may be disparging the mere mention of quagmire, and insisting Vietnam was then, but the President's speech depended on exactly that kind of domestic "other," as if those asking questions about his policies on the ground were doing so to get us out of Iraq, and thereby, to harm America.
Watching the speech, it seemed remarkably lame. If that's the best Rove can come up with, Bush will lose.
Any thoughts on what else Rove might have up his sleeve?
Or at some point, after years of obsfucation, do you lose track of what's real?
Update: edited for content