quagmire: bush’s iraq war and his troop realignment plans

quagmire. a bog or marsh. it’s a soft wet area of low-lying land that sinks underfoot.

when a person is bogged down in a quagmire, it means he or she is unable to meet obligations. that person would be stuck in a daily, self-defeating routine. this is how i see the predicament of george w. bush and his administration as they deal with the war in iraq. from march 20 to may 1, 2003 (the end of major combat when bush declared "mission accomplished") 139 u.s. soldiers were killed. from may 2, 2003 to june 28, 2004 (when sovereignty was turned over to iraq) 715 u.s. soldiers were killed. from june 29, 2004 (the day after the official turnover of sovereignty to iraq) up to the present, 90 u.s. soldiers have been killed. the total number of american soldiers killed in iraq? 944 and counting. these are real lives of sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, and sisters of patriotic americans who are mostly coming from poor economic background.

with these casualties of war, the americans are still losing the hearts and minds of the iraqi people. bush and the hawks around him knew how to win the votes of u.s. legislators in leading u.s. into war, but they don’t know how to lead their nation to win the peace among the people of iraq.

now, they are making image-building decisions to cover up the reality of their iraq quagmire. this thought came to mind while watching the cnn yesterday morning:

bush said about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel would move from overseas to posts in the united states over the next decade. “the move would also involve about 100,000 family members and civilian employees,” bush said.

"the new plan will help us fight and win these wars of the 21st century," bush said in a speech before a convention of the veterans of foreign wars.

troop movement plans three months before the election? hmmm… why does the term “approval rating” keep on flashing before me? would the americans still believe that bush can really lead them win a war?granted. the current global alignment of american troops were designed for the cold war. yes, the americans need to realign their troops to adapt to the new global challenges (to their hegemony). but it's obvious that the timing of bush's move is so politically convenient as he seeks re-election.

this troop realignment would also make more military personnel and resources available for redeployment to iraq—especially those who are presently based in europe and asia. if this happens, many of those who are currently in iraq would hopefully be allowed to go home. many of my american friends, whose loved-ones are in iraq, would be very happy. and i’ll be happy for them. fred and wilma would finally see their daughter come home. alfredo and celeste would be able to embrace their son again. jean would soon be reunited with her husband. (all these loved-ones on the battle field should have been back in the u.s. a few months ago. however, their respective tours of duty were extended—against their will.)bush might benefit politically from these military resource-movements. but it’s a band aid approach to the real problem he’s facing—that he's into a quagmire.

i hope i'm wrong.