Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency “could go on for any number of years.”
Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job.
You could almost make a drinking game out of which Bush official is most disconnected from reality.
Is it Dick “Last Throes” Cheney, with his assertion that the war will end before Bush leaves office?
Or is it Donald “Known Unknowns” Rumsfeld, with his more pessimistic “the insurgency could go on forever, or not” view of the war?
“I would anticipate you’re going to see an escalation of violence between now and the December elections,” the Pentagon chief told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Well, of course. That’s only to be expected. But surely, after the December elections, the insurgents will finally understand that they can’t stop the zamboni of democracy from polishing their country to an icy gleam. Right?
“Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We’re going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency,” [Rumsfeld] said.
Sure, why not? We created an environment that necessitated the insurgency in the first place, so why not set up an environment where Iraqi forces can win?
All we have to do is fight all the battles and pay all the expenses. They’ll take care of the rest, like providing intelligence to the enemy, and loaning out their uniforms to suicide bombers.
Rumsfeld said Sunday he gave President Bush a list of about 15 things “that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started.”
He said they included Iraq’s oil wells being set on fire; mass refugees and relocations; blown-up bridges; and a moat of oil around Baghdad, the capital.
“So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not happen,” Rumsfeld said.
I feel very reassured. Maybe things aren’t going that badly after all. Every time I read that another convoy of women soliders was blown up by a suicide bomber, at least I can console myself with, “At least there was no moat of oil around Baghdad.”
In that spirit, I have compiled a list of Special Thoughts you can use to look on the bright side of war.
- Four American contractors were kidnapped and beheaded, BUT at least they weren’t thrown into the Sarlacc Pit.
- An Army Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing at least six U.S. soldiers, BUT at least Saddam didn’t release his mutant army of dinosaur mecha-warriors.
- $200 billion dollars of taxpayer money has been flushed down the toilet, BUT at least I didn’t catch this guy in bed with my wife.
Rumsfeld defended Cheney’s recent statement that the insurgents are in their “last throes,” saying there are many ways to measure their strength.
“If you look up ‘last throes,’ it can mean a violent last throe,” Rumsfeld said on ABC’s “This Week.” Violence may escalate, he said, because insurgents “have so much to lose between now and December.” he said.
Mr. Rumsfeld, my congratulations. Turning to the dictionary definition of what can technically be considered “throes” is a tactic of Clintonian proportions.
Sure enough, if you look up “throes”, you’ll find that it means “a condition of agonizing struggle or trouble.”
I know what you’re thinking. But, Mr. Rumsfeld, “throes” wasn’t the operative word in Mr. Cheney’s statement. The operative word was “last”. He said, “last throes.” Doesn’t that mean the final throes, the throes just before the end?
Well, I guess that depends on how you define “last.” Luckily for Mr. Cheney, if you look up “last,” you’ll see that it can mean “to persist or endure for the entire length of.”
So, when Mr. Cheney said “last throes,” I’m sure what he really meant was “a condition of agonizing struggle or trouble that will persist or endure for the entire length of the war.”
