Looks like George W Bush's SOTU speech was based on the same old agenda that originated with the help of the PNAC, and now includes the use of mercenaries in the Iraq war. A war that includes the occupation of Iraq for many years, which has actually been known by the Neocon ideologs since it's inception.
George W Bush in his State of the Union speech said something about a civilian reserve corps. It was his statement, but from an address that employed four speech writers.
Quote:
"A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time."
A State of the Union speech that echoed the ideas put forth in a letter to congress from the PNAC on increasing US Ground Forces from Jan. 28, 2005.
Project For The New American Century: letter to congress
Among the signers of this letter was General Barry McAffrey, and of course William Kristol.
Four months later: Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) has this to say.
In June of 2005, he surveyed Iraq on behalf of U.S. Central Command and wrote an optimistic report afterwards. In it, he says the U.S. senior military leadership team is superb and predicts the insurgency will reach its peak from January-to-September 2006, allowing for U.S. force withdrawls in the late summer of 2006. A year later, however, after visiting Iraq again, his assessment was grim: "Iraq is abject misery...I think it's a terribly dangerous place for diplomats and journalists and contractors and Iraqi mothers. Trying to go about daily life in that city is a real nightmare for these poor people." He called Abu Ghraib "the biggest mistake that happened so far.". In an official memorandum, McCaffrey nevertheless expressed optimism about the operation's longer term future: "The situation is perilous, uncertain, and extreme — but far from hopeless. The U.S. Armed Forces are a rock. This is the most competent and brilliantly led military in a tactical and operational sense that we have ever fielded.... There is no reason why the U.S. cannot achieve our objectives in Iraq. Our aim must be to create a viable federal state under the rule of law which does not: enslave its own people, threaten its neighbors, or produce weapons of mass destruction. This is a ten year task. We should be able to draw down most of our combat forces in 3-5 years. We have few alternatives to the current US strategy which is painfully but gradually succeeding. This is now a race against time. Do we have the political will, do we have the military power, will we spend the resources required to achieve our aims?" His assessment noted several negative areas as well as very positive areas in the struggle for democracy in the country.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
At the end paragraph of the Jan. 28, 2005 PNAC letter congress is asked to provide military manpower to carry out foreign policy abjectives...Hmmm
Quote
"Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world."
No comments:
Post a Comment