Iraq: Permanent US Colony
Hard News: Iraq: Permanent US Colony: "Iraq: Permanent US Colony
By Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 14 March 2006
Why does the Bush Administration refuse to discuss withdrawing occupation forces from Iraq? Why is Halliburton, who landed the no-bid contracts to construct and maintain US military bases in Iraq, posting higher profits than ever before in its 86-year history?
Why do these bases in Iraq resemble self-contained cities as much as military outposts?
Why are we hearing such ludicrous and outrageous statements from the highest ranking military general in the United States, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, who when asked how things were going in Iraq on March 5th in an interview on 'Meet the Press' said, 'I'd say they're going well. I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they're going very, very well from everything you look at.'
I wonder if there is a training school, or at least talking point memos for these Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because Pace's predecessor, Gen. Richard Myers, told Senator John McCain last September that 'In a sense, things are going well [in Iraq].'
General Pace also praised the Iraqi military, saying, 'Now there are over 100 [Iraqi] battalions in the field.'
Wow! General Pace must have waved his magic wand and materialized all these 99 new Iraqi battalions that are diligently keeping things safe and secure in occupied Iraq. Because according to the top US general in Iraq, General George Casey, not long ago there was only one Iraqi battalion (about 500-600 soldiers) capable of fighting on its own in Iraq.
During a late-September 2005 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Casey acknowledged that the Pentagon estimate of three"
By Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 14 March 2006
Why does the Bush Administration refuse to discuss withdrawing occupation forces from Iraq? Why is Halliburton, who landed the no-bid contracts to construct and maintain US military bases in Iraq, posting higher profits than ever before in its 86-year history?
Why do these bases in Iraq resemble self-contained cities as much as military outposts?
Why are we hearing such ludicrous and outrageous statements from the highest ranking military general in the United States, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, who when asked how things were going in Iraq on March 5th in an interview on 'Meet the Press' said, 'I'd say they're going well. I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they're going very, very well from everything you look at.'
I wonder if there is a training school, or at least talking point memos for these Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because Pace's predecessor, Gen. Richard Myers, told Senator John McCain last September that 'In a sense, things are going well [in Iraq].'
General Pace also praised the Iraqi military, saying, 'Now there are over 100 [Iraqi] battalions in the field.'
Wow! General Pace must have waved his magic wand and materialized all these 99 new Iraqi battalions that are diligently keeping things safe and secure in occupied Iraq. Because according to the top US general in Iraq, General George Casey, not long ago there was only one Iraqi battalion (about 500-600 soldiers) capable of fighting on its own in Iraq.
During a late-September 2005 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Casey acknowledged that the Pentagon estimate of three"
posted by Thaqalain | Sunday, March 26, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home