Vol. 71/No. 13      April 2, 2007

Just before Bush's speech, White House press secretary Anthony Snow said, "This is going to be—the term has been used before—a long war… . I don't think anyone is trying to hide the fact."

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress continue to promote a bill that calls for a "phased withdrawal" from Iraq while approving billions for the wars there and in Afghanistan.

In his brief address, Bush reiterated the U.S. rulers' main rationale for their multi-theater "war on terrorism," from Iraq to Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Philippines. He said "terrorists" seek a safe haven from which to carry out attacks like 9/11.

Bush stressed that the U.S.-led crackdown, focused in Baghdad and the largely Sunni Anbar province, is in its early stages since less than half of the 28,000 additional U.S. troops have arrived.

In Baghdad, Navy Rear Admiral Mark Fox said civilian casualties in the capital were reduced by 50 percent in the first month of the operation, the Pentagon press service reported March 19. Fox said 25 Joint Security Stations are operating in the city, and the goal is 70. "This is a conditions-based effort,” he said. “If we need more, we will build more."

On Capitol Hill, Democrats are proposing to add $24 billion in domestic spending to a $100 billion supplemental war spending bill for Iraq in hopes of enticing Republican votes. The legislation would also place "readiness" requirements on future troop deployments and set an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from a combat role in Iraq. Bush has said he will veto such a bill.

"Members of Congress," said Bush in his address, "have a responsibility to ensure that this bill provides the funds and the flexibility that our troops need to accomplish their mission… . a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special-interest spending for their districts. And they have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay."

Liberals and other critics of the Bush administration have not offered an effective alternative to the government's course on Iraq because they accept the basic premise of the "war on terror."

A March 18 Washington Post editorial, reflecting on four years of the Iraq war, expressed half-hearted regrets for supporting the war but concluded, "Unfortunately, none of this provides bright guidelines to make the next decisions easier—not even those facing the nation right now in Iraq. It's tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction."

A March 7 statement by the AFL-CIO Executive Council calling for an end to the war was couched in the same framework. "Blind pursuit of the war now undermines the very war on terror that was its justification," the union federation said. It recommends adoption of the main proposals from the now moribund Iraq Study Group.
 
 
Related articles:
D.C. marchers: ‘No to Iraq war!’
6,000 march in New York to protest Iraq war
Young Socialists join rallies, demand: ‘Not one penny, or person, for Washington’s wars!’  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home