The New York Times Says "Generals Offer Sober Outlook On Iraqi War" So What's Bush Drinking?

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that several high ranking military commanders in Baghdad and Washington have expressed grave doubts that U.S. armed forces will be able to leave Iraq any time soon. One of the anonymous truth-tellers said that the military could be waist deep in this big muddy for "many years" and that it could still fail to make Mesopotamia safe for Starbucks, Citigroup and Exxon-Mobil.

There were 21 car bombings in Baghdad so far this month which almost matches the total for all of last year. A recent poll conducted by Baghdad University shows that public confidence in the new Iraqi government has plummeted from 85 to 45 percent since the elections in January. So, while the resistance is obviously alive and well, the majority of the Iraqi people are doing what the majority usually does during a revolution or civil war; they are waiting on the sidelines to see which side eventually emerges victorious.

The reality is that there are far too few U.S. troops in Iraq to keep proper order let alone vanquish a determined and resourceful opponent. Efforts to build up indigenous Iraqi forces have proved so disappointing that not a single Iraqi unit was sent along with on the recent Marine offensive against resistance strongholds in the northwestern desert, along the border with Syria.

And what does our fearless leader have to say about all this? That sage in the White House, speaking before the International Republican Institute (now there's an oxymoron), also on Wednesday, informs us that our own American Revolution was followed by "years of chaos." Chaos? While it is certainly true that the United States experienced its share of serious difficulties following the revolution including an economic downturn to rival the Great Depression, there is simply no way to compare Shay's Rebellion to the murder and mayhem that is occurring in Iraq on a daily basis.

Glorious George also proclaimed that "No nation in history has made the transition from tyranny to a free society without set back and false starts." What about Germany and Japan after World War II? Where exactly were the "false starts" in those cases? Both countries were soundly defeated, accepted their defeat and then worked with their conquerors to build successful political systems from the ground up. There was no sense on the part of the majority in either case that the occupations were unjustified or that there were ulterior motives on the part of the Allies. FDR, Truman, George Marshall and Doug MacArthur would also never have tolerated the kind of half-assed security and rebuilding efforts that Bush & Co. have allowed to go on.

What a difference 60 years or so can make in the quality of a nation's leadership, huh?