Blair Subtracts, Bush Adds, Go Figure
By James T. Moore (02/23/07)
This may go down in history as the goofiest dichotomy of our age: while Britain is pulling troops out of Iraq, the U.S. is pouring more troops in. This indicates--erroneously, of course--that we may be winning the war in northern Iraq, but losing it down south, in Basra. At least that's what the most recent reports imply.
Today we learn that Blair will announce the withdrawal of 1,500 British soldiers from Iraq, leaving only 7,000 troops there with the rest of our “coalition” forces: 3,200 Koreans, 2,600 Italians, and 2,000 “others.” Coalition forces, in case you still don’t know, is the term the Bush bunch uses to give Americans the impression that we have help with our war in Iraq. Yeah, some help.
Meantime, while Blair, in an illusory mood, seems to think that we’ve won the war, Bush, thinking Blair has a screw loose, is adding 21,000 more American troops to the 136,000 we already have there; for a total of 157,000 American soldiers left to wonder if (not when) they’ll be coming home.
While talking with Blair about the British withdrawal, out of Bush’s mouth comes this preposterous observation: “Britain’s troop cutbacks was a sign of success in Iraq.” If that’s success, then why, Mr. President, are you sending 21,000 more warm bodies into that Middle East hellhole?
If you’re not feeling as pissed off as I am about this unbalanced “coalition” tommyrot, you should be, because it’s a lot more of our boys than theirs getting shot at over there.
And while we’re on the subject of sending more troops into foreign lands, it might give you pause to think about a recent article: Update on the Empire, by Lawrence M. Vance. In the article, Vance reports, flat out, the truth about our “little known” foreign interference around the world, which has been going on full steam long before Iraq.
In March, 2004, Vance documented that the U.S. had troops in 135 countries and 14 territories. Seven months later, he noted that the U.S. “empire” had increased to 150 different regions. In 2005, Vance revealed the American military influence had grown to 155 different areas of the world. And today, Vance tells us that the U.S. empire has now “extended its tentacles” to 159 regions of the world, including 144 countries and 15 territories. (If you’d like a list of which countries and territories the U.S. has soldiers in, contact me at [email]jtmoore1819@juno.com[/email] and I’ll be glad to send you the list.)
The intriguing aspect of sending more soldiers to Iraq, together with troop increases around the world, isn’t in the increases per se but in the ominous vision of what it portends: American hegemony, raw imperialism, world rule, in short, the nucleus of the New World Order.
If this seems a bit farfetched, try answering these questions posed by Vance: “If this is not imperialistic, what else would you call it?” “Is there any reason for the U.S. still having 64,319 troops in Germany, 33,453 troops in Japan, and 10,449 troops in Italy….60 years after World War II? And what are we doing with 1,521 troops in Spain, 414 troops in Honduras, and 347 troops in Australia?”
But, you say, aren’t U. S. troops there to guard our embassies? That’s a fallacy, maintains Vance. It is definitely not our troops at U.S. embassies that accounts for our big military presence in these countries.
The old cliché of America as the world’s policeman has now progressed to a more chilling level: America is now assuming the role of the world’s hegemonic, New Order leader, with unpleasant consequences for those countries that dare to question American takeover.
James T. Moore
http://jamestmoore.us/
(Printer friendly version) Email: James T. Moore
