Political conflict intensifies over Bush’s Iraq war lies

[IndianaGreen]

Political conflict intensifies over Bush’s Iraq war lies
By Patrick Martin
19 November 2005

Murtha’s intervention thus brings to light a conflict which runs right through the US military establishment. A sizeable section of the military brass recognizes that Iraq has become a disaster, not just for the recruitment of new forces, but for maintaining the morale of those currently in military service, especially in units of the Army, Marine Corps and National Guard, which have suffered heavy casualties, including both deaths and crippling wounds.

The officer corps is itself becoming politicized by the conflict over the war—a development that has the most ominous implications for democratic rights. A top US military commander in Iraq made an extraordinary public intervention in the debate going on in Washington, denouncing calls for a timetable for withdrawal of US troops as “a recipe for disaster.”

Only two days after the Senate voted by 58-40 against a Democratic resolution that would have called on the Bush administration to draft such a timetable, Major General William Webster attacked the idea, telling reporters, “Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I’ve lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain.” Webster commands the Third Infantry Division, which controls the bulk of Baghdad.

It is highly irregular for an active-duty military officer to comment publicly on a political debate taking place in Congress. The tone of Webster’s remarks amounted to an incitement to the soldiers under his command to reject civilian authority, should Congress or a future president ultimately decide to impose a withdrawal timetable in Iraq.

What must be understood about the escalating debate in official Washington is that it is a conflict with the ruling elite over how best to safeguard the interests of American imperialism. Bush’s Democratic critics are not “antiwar” in any serious sense of the word. They largely backed the Iraq war to begin with and, as the statements of Clinton, Kerry and others demonstrate, they still support the goal of the intervention, which was to seize control of a key oil-producing country and transform it into a US client state.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/bush-n19.shtml

[cliss]

1. How true that is....

"the debate is that it is a conflict with the ruling elite over how best to safeguard the interests of American imperialism".

So maybe the fighting now is about how the war has been fought; namely the loss of lives and the incredible expense. I believe that.

Also, it's easy to say "I told you so" when a plan is failing. Very easy.

At this time, it would be good to look at other Empires, and see how they failed. The British Empire might be a good one.

[IndianaGreen]

2. There are a lot of Freepers among the military brass

They pose a serious threat to our Republic if they entertain any notions of subverting civilian authority in order to pursue their religious imperialistic agenda.