The ‘Raq, Rice and Gates

Although buy cheap zofran online radiation therapy itself generally does not cause pain, the treatment buy generic clonidine no prescription usa may cause painful side effects. After effectively treating KP, people xalatan sale may find it beneficial to follow a maintenance routine under remeron information the recommendation of a dermatologist. For those who use a buying retin-a cost continuous glucose monitor, the care plan lists the brand and cheap serevent model and the glucose level cutoffs for the alarms. As viagra for order such, if the test suggests the presence of cancerous cells, purchase allopurinol online a doctor will likely request further tests, such as a discount betnovate cystoscopy or CT scan. White blood cells called T helper buy lasix low cost pharmacy lymphocytes (Th) are important for adaptive immunity, where the immune artane in us system learns to protect itself from foreign invaders, like bacteria. buy prednisolone online To learn more about saving money on prescriptions with or order lumigan online without insurance, check out this article. Depending on the person's response.

ap_rice_gates_071010_ms.jpg

I don’t know how I missed it this morning but today Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had an opinion piece in the Washington Post. Titled “What We Need Next in Iraq” this dynamic duo take a moment to give us what they consider to be the most important things to consider in regards to our current military occupation of Iraq. To me, this piece represents some sort of want to show us that there will soon be a change in our involvement in Iraq. Rice and Gates mentioned “normalized relations” with the Iraqi government and included that a “status of forces” agreement.

The role and scope of US military forces in Iraq, the way they would like to see it, seem down-right reasonable. Now, this ninja has done his homework in regards to the ‘Raq (read: Gerges, Packer, Marr, etc.) and I happen to think that indeed a 0 troop count in Iraq is not the best thing for either us or them. This does not mean that I, in any way, support the rediculous amounts of unnecessary resources (lives, money) we currently have dedicated to this cause. Today’s piece offered by Rice and Gates says:

In these negotiations, we seek to set the basic parameters for the U.S. presence in Iraq, including the appropriate authorities and jurisdiction necessary to operate effectively and to carry out essential missions, such as helping the Iraqi government fight al-Qaeda, develop its security forces, and stem the flow of lethal weapons and training from Iran. In addition, we seek to establish a basic framework for a strong relationship with Iraq, reflecting our shared political, economic, cultural and security interests.

Nothing to be negotiated will mandate that we continue combat missions. Nothing will set troop levels. Nothing will commit the United States to join Iraq in a war against another country or provide other such security commitments. And nothing will authorize permanent bases in Iraq (something neither we nor Iraqis want).

Obviously, no specifics of what this entails are available (i.e. number of troops required). I’m just not sure what to make of the piece. Why can’t Bush ever articulate these aims? Is this just an attempt to lower the distain levels of the current administration? What do you think, ninjas?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>