Bush: US Stays in Iraq as Long as He is Office (Why the Sudden Change?)
In stark contrast to British policy
LONDON(Reuters) - Britainmay cut its force in in half by the middle of next year after handing over security responsibility for the south to Iraqis within nine months, a senior British commander said on Tuesday. Iraq
President Bush announced that he plans to keep US forces for the remainder of his administration, citing "Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it" as well as emboldening terrorists.
However, this attitude is starkly different from the path we were headed down just a few months ago when the Pentagon announced significant troop withdrawals by Dec. 2007.
While the White House and Congressional talking heads will all point to this as domestic politics (i.e. Bush needs to look firm, forcing Democrats to take stronger stance), I think there is something much bigger, and perhaps much more chilling involved here. Let me set the stage:
With the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in southern
At the same time, we’ve gotten two major terror plots uncovered and (thankfully) averted within the last 30 days. This means that
During all of this, Iran has drawn the line in the sand over their nuclear policy and developing capabilities. They’ve thumbed their noses at the UN the rest of the world, and they’ve gone a step further by fanning the flames.
Combine all this with US/South Korean military exercises that have been obviously impressive enough as to provoke threats from North Korea of attacks if we don’t back off.
Why? Why is Bush suddenly becoming a brick wall on
Are things much tenser with