"Three retired generals approached by the White House about a new high-profile post overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and reporting directly to the president have rejected the proposed post, leaving the administration struggling to find anyone of stature willing to take it on."
The Guardian - April 12, 2007
Not only has Governor Bush's "Executive Search" for a quasi-Commander-in-Chief seem to be stalled but the audacity of the attacks in Iraq seem to be growing as the much vaunted "Surge" enters its second month.
One has to ask the obvious question.
"If Bush is not the Commander-in-Chief, who is?"
Much was made in Bush's first 21 months about his Hands-Off, I'm on Vacation, attitude towards running the most powerful country in the world. Then, as he is fond of saying "911 changed everything".
Now it seems that Bush has even grown weary of striding around in a flight suit, "I'm the Decider" persona and is seeking a real man to take over what is arguably and constitutionally his most important role as Chief Executive; running the military at the executive level in a time of conflict.
Washington must be gnashing his wooden teeth and spinning in his grave.
At the same time, the only tangible outcome of the invasion of Iraq, the democratically elected parliament, suffered its greatest blow after a suicide bomber executed the most brazen attack yet on the country's new democratic institutions, detonating a bomb that killed at least eight people including three MPs, inside the much heralded Green Zone.
And yet, while Bush postures about the Congress' passing of the Emergency War Funding Act, by saying that it will mean that more soldiers will serve longer and have less time between deployments, it transpires that this situation is one that will come to pass regardless, because of the Army's estimates of needed troop levels to make any difference in Baghdad, or indeed Iraq, in this latest "surge" of folly.
No comments:
Post a Comment