The cost of Iraq War: Defense vs. Offense flyer for printing

[roseBudd]

Go to http://somnamblst.tripod.com to download high res TIF or PDF files for printing.

The one below is legal size:

[izzie]

1. Are we going to do what we did with Nixon?

I would not put it passed the voters. I will bet if Bush gets in more people are killed in Iraq. Both Iraq people and Americans. Someone should get that time line out from Vietnam. I am sure we lost that war long before we got out and this is looking a lot like the same old thing. I am willing to bet that Bush and WH are even calling where to bomb just like in Nam. The more things do not go as the WH likes the funner our military gets over their.Sunny Bush is never going to tell the truth. Odd part is the people like to hear that sunny stuff.

[roseBudd]

2. I think we need to point out that Bush has neglected Defense

because defense isn't fun for a sadist and doesn't give him any strut time.

We also need to hammer home how Iraq is a huge blunder that has made us less safe.

Please refer people to The Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute report on the Global War on Terror from dec., 2003:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubResult.cfm/hurl/PubID=207/BOUNDING_THE_GLOBAL_WAR_ON_TERRORISM.cfm
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States, the US Government declared a global war on terrorism (GWOT). The nature and parameters of that war, however, remain frustratingly unclear.

The administration has postulated a multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators; terrorist organizations of global, regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to have conflated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.

Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat.This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to US deterrence and military action.

The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda.

The war against Iraq was not integral to the Global War on Terrorism, but rather a detour from it. Additionally, most of the GWOT’s declared objectives, which include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As such, the GWOT’s goals are also politically, fiscally, and militarily unsustainable.


The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted
is strategically unfocused,promises much more than it can deliver,
and threatens to dissipate U.S.military and other resources in an
endless and hopeless search for absolute security.The United States
may be able to defeat,even destroy,al-Qaeda,but it cannot rid the
world of terrorism,much less evil.