A comment on George W Bush’s new speech on his plans to escalate the Iraq war even more:
In speech on Iraq escalation, Bush promises more bloodshed, wider war
By the Editorial Board
11 January 2007
President Bush’s television address Wednesday night, announcing his dispatch of over 20,000 more American troops to Iraq, signaled that the bloodletting in that country will increase dramatically in the course of 2007, and that Bush administration is likely to expand the war into Syria, Iran [see also here] and other targets in the Middle East.
This decision to escalate the US military intervention is a direct repudiation of the results of the 2006 congressional elections, in which millions of American voters expressed their opposition to the war in Iraq by putting an end to Republican control of the Senate and House of Representatives.
According to Think Progress blog in the USA, the media wrongly describe Bush’s new Iraq war policy as ‘surge’ while ‘escalation’ would be correct.
Comment by Arianna Huffington: here.
By Joseph Nye: here.
By Nathan Gardels: here.
By Representative John Conyers: here.
By Marty Kaplan: here.
By European media: here.
US media and Bush: here.
Bush’s fellow Republican, Senator McCain, like many other Bush supporters, claimed in 2002 that the Iraq war would be ‘easy’ … and still defends that view today …
There are precedents of Republican politicians refusing military spending while a Democrat was US President.
Why can’t it be the other way now?
Big Oil grab at oil reserves of Iraq: here.
An Iraqi exile on the oil law proposals: here.
Anti Iraq war demonstrations in the USA; and in Sri Lanka: here.
Related articles
- “Hubris”: New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War “Hoax” (motherjones.com)
- ‘Hubris: Selling The Iraq War’ Details Lies Spun To Justify It (crooksandliars.com)
- Hubris: Rachel Maddow Shocks America Into Remembering Bush’s War Crimes (politicususa.com)
- Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses (washingtonsblog.com)
- Former Powell chief of staff ‘damn sure the Bush administration cooked the books’ on Iraq (rawstory.com)
- MSNBC’s ‘Hubris’ Documentary: Overlooking the Role of Media in Selling the Iraq War (dissenter.firedoglake.com)
- ‘We Did Participate in a Hoax’: New Documentary Offers New Revelations About the Bush Admin’s Phony Case for the Iraq War Scam (bradblog.com)
Dear Kitty. Some blog 
The TROOPS OUT NOW COALITION
The Troops Out Now Coalition urges antiwar activists to
participate in the many protests being organized over the
coming days in response to Bush’s call for escalating war.
In addition to the protests scheduled for Thursday, TONC
is calling on activists in NYC to gather on
Monday, January 15, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday for
a
United “Surge” Against the War
Between 4 and 6 pm
at the Times Square Recruiting Station, 43rd St. &
Broadway
**THE TROOPS OUT NOW COALITION’S RESPONSE TO BUSH’S
“SURGE” SPEECH
The War Will Go On Forever Unless We Rise Up and Stop It
Force Congress to Cut Off ALL War Funding
We can do it if we move from symbolic protest to mass
resistance
Be prepared to stay in D.C. this spring
An Appeal for Unity in the Antiwar Movement:
Lets work together for the January 27 and March 17
antiwar marches
The point of President Bush’s “surge” speech this evening
is not in the details of his proposals; rather, it’s the
message. The details of Bush’s proposal amount to nothing
more than a desperate effort to bolster a criminal
colonial occupation by ordering more killing and
destruction. Bush’s message is more important. He’s
telling us once again that he doesn’t care that the
majority of us want the war and occupation to end
immediately; he’s going to continue the war until the
people literally rise up in mass rebellion in the streets
to end it.
Indeed, Bush is not only determined to continue the war
and occupation in Iraq; he’s opened a new front for his
global war of colonial conquest in Africa. At this very
moment, U.S. AC-130 gun ships are attacking the people of
Somalia, as an armada of Pentagon war ships with thousands
of troops and bombs waits off the Indian Ocean coast of
that country for orders to attack. At the same time, the
Pentagon is strengthening it’s land and sea forces around
Iran in preparation for a military attack on that country.
The time has come for the antiwar movement to move from
symbolic protest to mass resistance.
Congress must be put on notice; it is not enough to merely
oppose Bush’s proposal for a “surge” in troops to Iraq.
It’s not enough for Congress to hold more hearings to
criticize the war–talk is cheap and people are tired of
it. It’s not enough for Congress to vote on resolutions
calling for phased withdrawals and timetables, or any
other partial measures. It’s not enough for Congress to
threaten to oppose funding for new troops.
Last November, the voters mandated the government to get
out of Iraq. The elections changed the leadership of
Congress to serve this purpose. It is now up to the people
to insure that Congress does not betray this mandate.
The people want nothing less than the immediate,
unconditional, and complete withdrawal of all troops, and
the shortest route to that end is for Congress to vote
“no” to any further request for war funds, period.
When Congress gets President Bush’s request for $100
billion more to fund the war, it must say “no” to the
entire amount. To ensure that Congress does not approve
another dollar for the war, on March 17, (the fourth
anniversary of the war) when we march on Washington
against the war, instead of getting back on our buses and
heading home, we must be prepared to stay in Washington to
make sure that Congress votes “no.”
Forcing Congress to cut off all war funding is the
defining struggle for the antiwar movement this spring,
and we can do it if we think and act big. The people are
on our side, the momentum is on our side; the whole world
is on our side. The only question is whether we have the
conviction and the courage to take our struggle against
the war from the level of symbolic protest to real mass
resistance.
A key factor will be our ability as a movement to rise
above our differences and renew a commitment to work for
unity with each other–for all anti-war forces, especially
the national antiwar coalitions, to work together this
spring. We appeal to our sisters and brothers in United
For Peace and Justice to work together with the ANSWER
Coalition, TONC, and the more anti-imperialist forces in
the antiwar movement, as well as all of the other national
and local forces organizing against the war, especially
those organizations and leaders that represent the most
militant forces in the Black and immigrant workers rights
movements, and the militants in the anti-globalization
movement whose energy, imagination and fearlessness will
be helpful in moving from protest to resistance to make
both the January 27 march in Washington, as well as the
March 17 march, as strong as they possibly can be.
IN MARCH – WE MUST BE READY TO STAY IN WASHINGTON
Let’s get ready to march on Washington on January 27, and
we will come back on March 17. And when we come back in
March, this time we must be prepared to stay there in the
thousands to force Congress to vote “no” on more war
funding. If Congress tries to rush a vote on war funding
before March 17, this time we must be prepared to come to
Washington in mass to make sure that the war funding is
voted down.
PAY THE PEOPLES BILLS – NOT FOR WAR & OCCUPATION
BRING YOUR BILLS WITH YOU TO WASHINGTON
We are asking people to bring their medical bills, rent,
heating and utility bills, student loans, credit card
bills, and food bills that they can’t afford to pay, as
well as shut-off notices, mortgage foreclosures, eviction
notices to the march on Washington. It must be made clear
to Congress that feeding more money to the war while more
and more people cannot pay for their basic living expenses
is criminal.
The cost is not the only reason why we oppose the war. We
oppose it because it is an imperialist war for colonial
conquest and plunder.
Yet the cost of the war is important because it’s paid for
by money stolen from social needs. The money that has paid
for death and destruction in Iraq could have gone towards
reconstruction in New Orleans, for example.
In his famous speech declaring his opposition to the
Vietnam war almost 40 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. said, “It is disgraceful that a Congress that can vote
upwards of $35 billion a year for a senseless immoral war
in Vietnam cannot vote a weak $2 billion dollars to carry
on our all too feeble efforts to bind up the wound of our
nation’s 35 million poor. This is nothing short of a
Congress engaging in political guerilla warfare against
the defenseless poor of our nation.”
* Immediate, Unconditional & Complete Withdrawal from Iraq
— Out Now!
* End Colonial Occupation and Imperialist Aggression, from
Africa to Asia, from Iraq to Palestine, from Afghanistan
to Haiti, from the Philippines to Puerto Rico
* No New Wars Against Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
Somalia — Hands Off Cuba and Venezuela
* Stop the War at Home –Stop Racist Police Terror – Stop
the Raids Against Immigrant Workers –Solidarity with
Immigrant Workers and Katrina Survivors
LikeLike
Subject: You Thought Iraq Could Not Get Worse
Dear Friends,
Just when we thought the war in Iraq couldn’t get any worse – it has. Last
night, President Bush rejected reality, spurned the American people’s
verdict, and announced his new policy: MILITARY ESCALATION IN IRAQ.
The good news is that the newly elected United States Congress can stop
this madness, mainly by refusing funding. We’re launching an immediate
campaign to let the Congress hear from global voices – placing an ad with
the number of signatures to our petition in “Roll Call”, an influential
political paper sent to every member of the US Congress. Please click
below to see the ad, and sign the petition:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_campaign_jan_2007/
With hope,
Ricken, Paul, Tom, Rachel, Galit, Lee-Sean and the rest of the
Avaaz.org Team
LikeLike
*With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals*
Posted by: “hapi22” hapi22@earthlink.net robinsegg
Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:07 am (PST)
George W. Bush is a physical and moral COWARD.
In college, Bush didn’t play football — he might have gotten hurt He
was the “pom-pom” boy cheerleader on the sidelines urging the players to
smash the opposition.
Bush is too timid to get up on, much less ride, a horse; he just
swaggers like a cowboy so no one will notice his fear.
In wartime, Bush checked the box indicating he was NOT willing to go
overseas to fight in Vietnam; he was the “pom-pom” boy urging the
soldiers there to smash the enemy.
Bush has roundly criticized LBJ for not doing enough to win the Vietnam
war; yet, Bush was not willing to send in the large force it would have
taken to win in Iraq, because that would have been too threatening to
his chances for re-election. (Nothing mattered more to Bush than getting
re-elected to erase the stain of his father’s defeat when Dad failed to
win re-election.) Bush knew that by escalating the war in Vietnam, LBJ
had destroyed his own political career; Bush was not willing to risk his
own political career to wage the war in Iraq the way his generals told
him it would have to be waged in order to secure victory and stability
in Iraq.
When visiting Iraq, Bush avoids any possibility he could be hurt or even
hear a dissenting word from the soldiers there; only soldiers loyal to
Bush have ever been allowed in the same room with him.
Bush is very big on sending OTHERS to smash this or that opponent or
enemy, but he has never — and will never — put his own precious body
in harm’s way.
He thinks that’s for suckers.
Bush’s new approach to saving his own skin — no matter who he hurts in
the process — is to now blame the generals for losing Iraq.
Bush is a physical and moral COWARD.
Hitler was also a physical and moral coward and he, also, blamed his
generals for losing the war. He also did one other thing Bush is doing:
When WWII was looking like a losing event for Hitler, he didn’t face
reality or accept facts. When the Russian army was closing in on Berlin,
Hitler ordered into battle German brigades that NO longer existed.
When extremely agitated about the progress of his war, Hitler chewed on
the carpet.
How long until Bush starts chewing on the carpet?
Bush is now positioning himself to make sure historians blame his
generals for losing Iraq. Tonight’s speech will be Bush’s first step in
laying down that marker.
The fact to remember is that the way this war has been fought has been a
direct result of the way Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld WANTED it to be
fought. The generals took their guidance from Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld
— NOT the other way around.
Even these reporters are now claiming that Bush has been waging the war
the way the generals wanted it done — that is a LIE.
The generals were chosen and/or fired based on their complete allegiance
to the plans of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
But, now it is time for Bush and Cheney and The Washington Post to BLAME
THE GENERALS.
Today is Step One in BLAME THE GENERALS.
Hitler is smiling.
———————————————————-
*With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals*
by Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post
January 10, 2007; A01
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to
outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has
avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top
military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised
against.
Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort
and for second-guessing his commanders. “It’s important to trust the
judgment of the military when they’re making military plans,” he told
The Washington Post in an interview last month. “I’m a strict adherer to
the command structure.”
But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has
deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has
pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in
Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000
U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the
military will soon be “surging” in Iraq two months after an election
that many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing
troops.
[NOTE FROM ME: It disgusts me to read that Bush is pushing
“back against his top military advisers and the commanders in
Iraq.” The orders have always come TO the generals FROM Bush,
Cheney and Rumsfeld. This is nothing more than CYA — Big
Time.]
Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long
opposed the increase in troops
[NOTE FROM ME: These reporters are ignoring the generals, such
as General Eric Shinseki, who — before the invasion —
CAUTIONED that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed
to stabilize Iraq after the initial invasion. Colin Powell has
always maintained that the military MUST go in with
“overwhelming force.:” Where the hell do these reporters get
this crap? Oh, directly from the White House, that’s where.
Shame on them. Any general who, in the past four years, asked
for more troops was IMMEDIATELY brought back to Washington
and fired or “promoted” into retirement.]
.
and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been
promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed
political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the
outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that
adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.
Bush’s decision appears to mark the first major disagreement between the
White House and key elements of the Pentagon over the Iraq war since
Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the
administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the
occupation force, which he regarded as too small.
It may also be a sign of increasing assertiveness from a commander in
chief described by former aides as relatively passive about questioning
the advice of his military advisers.
[NOTE FROM ME: I question the sanity of anyone who uses the
words “Bush” and “passive” in the same sentence.]
In going for more troops, Bush is picking an option that seems to have
little favor beyond the White House and a handful of hawks on Capitol
Hill and in think tanks who have been promoting the idea almost since
the time of the invasion.
[NOTE FROM ME: Bush got into the history books as a reelected
president. That was ALL he ever cared about. Right now he
doesn’t give a damn who dies or who loses what, as long as he
is not president when we quit Iraq.]
“It seems clear to me that the president has taken more positive control
of this strategy,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of those
pushing for more troops. “He understands that the safety of the nation
and his legacy is all on the line here.”
[NOTE FROM ME: If Bush gave a damn about the “safety” of the
nation, he would never have invaded Iraq in the first place.
Now he has angered a whole generation of young Arab men who
have good cause to hate us. How has that improved our safety?
It hasn’t, but any blowback will occur on some other
president’s watch, not Bush’s — and that’s ALL Bush cares
about. Right now, this is ALL about Bush’s legacy and the room
in his presidential library called “The Iraq War.”]
Others familiar with Bush’s thinking said he had not been happy with the
military’s advice. “The president wasn’t satisfied with the
recommendations he was getting, and he thought we need a strategy that
was more purposeful and likely to succeed if the Iraqis could make that
possible,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who recently stepped down as State
Department counselor after being involved with Iraqi policy the past two
years.
This impulse may well expose Bush to more criticism from Democrats on
Capitol Hill, who have sharply condemned him for not listening to
Shinseki’s counsel in the beginning. “I think a number of our military
leaders have pulled their punches, and will continue to pull their
punches publicly,” Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the new chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday.
There is little question that more troops for Iraq seemed far from the
conventional wisdom in Washington after the beating Bush and the
Republican Party took in the midterm elections Nov. 7. Indeed, when Bush
met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, on Nov.
30, Maliki did NOT ask for more American troops as part of a new Baghdad
security plan he presented to Bush, U.S. officials said.
Maliki’s idea was to LOWER the U.S. profile, NOT raise it. “The
message in Amman was that he wanted to take the lead and put an Iraqi
face on it. He wanted to control his own forces,” said a U.S. official
familiar with the visit.
Another problem for the administration was the Iraq Study Group, the
prestigious bipartisan panel headed by former secretary of state James
A. Baker III, a Republican, and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton
(D-Ind.). Soon after Bush returned from Jordan, the group delivered its
recommendations, including proposing a high-level dialogue with Iran and
Syria to help stabilize Iraq and setting a goal of early 2008 for the
removal of almost all U.S. combat troops.
Although the president was publicly polite, few of the key
Baker-Hamilton recommendations appealed to the administration, which
intensified its own deliberations over a new “way forward” in Iraq. How
to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme.
[NOTE FROM ME: One could almost have guaranteed that Bush
would never go for any plan put forward by Daddy’s Helper Come
To Bail Bush Out Of Trouble.]
As described by participants in the administration review, some staff
members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of
sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of
Baker-Hamilton. One senior administration official disputed that,
arguing that staff members were attracted to the “surge” option to
address long-standing concern that earlier efforts failed because of
insufficient security forces.
[NOTE FROM ME: That’s a crock. A few months ago, the military
moved huge numbers of troops into Baghdad from other parts of
Iraq. The purpose was to stabilize Baghdad. It had the
opposite effect … violence escalated and huge numbers of
Iraqis and Americans have been killed in Baghdad since the
arrival of MORE troops in Baghdad. ]
A troop increase also dovetailed with ideas being championed by Sen.
John McCain (R-Ariz.).
[NOTE FROM ME: John McCain wants desperately to be president.
He is old and can’t wait for the next election, in 2012, so he
HAS to be different from all the others running in order to
get attention to himself. But, it is important to remember
that McCain has repeatedly said that if all Bush is going to
do is send an additional 20,000-30,000 troops, he should
forget about it … it would only be putting additional troops
in jeopardy with no possibility of success. McCain says the
only way to do it is to send at least 100,000 additional
troops. Of course, McCain neglects to mention WHERE the
military will get the additional; 100,000 troops.]
>From only a few months after the start of the war in 2003, McCain has
argued that the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is too light, and he and a
handful of allies sought to use the post-election policy review to press
their case. For three years, their entreaties had been blocked by
then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, but after Rumsfeld was ousted
by Bush the day after the election, they found their message had a more
receptive audience at the White House. “There has always been within the
armed forces a group of people that believes we never had the right
strategy in Iraq, and they have been suppressed,” Graham said.
[NOTE FROM ME: Yes, General Shinseki, to name the most
obvious. General Shinseki was roundly laughed at by the
neocons and their rightwing media whore friends.]
Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute drafted a plan
with retired Army Gen. Jack Keane for sending seven more Army brigades
and Marine regiments to Iraq to provide greater security. Keane and
several other experts met with Bush on Dec. 11.
But from the beginning, the Joint Chiefs resisted. They had doubts that
Maliki would really confront the militias controlled by fellow Shiites,
notably Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Sadr held 30 seats in Maliki’s
parliamentary bloc and five ministries in his cabinet.
The Joint Chiefs were also worried that sending more troops would set up
the U.S. military for an even bigger failure — with no backup options.
They were concerned that the Iraqis would not deliver the troops to
handle their own security efforts, as had happened in the past. They
were particularly alarmed about the prospect of U.S. troops fighting in
a political vacuum if the administration did not complement the military
plan with political and economic changes, according to people familiar
with their views.
[NOTE FROM ME: There probably was time when there was a chance
of some success in Iraq. That was on Day One in Baghdad when
offering jobs and food and medical care — immediately — to
the population MIGHT have been met with some sense of
appreciation and some willingness to try to have a calmer
life. But after three years of violent sectarian actions, acts
of torture and murder between rival Sunni and Shiite groups,
it is no longer possible to imagine the Sunnis and Shias can
set aside 1,400 years of tribal hatred and magically start
living side by side in harmony and democracy.
All of this wind and bluster from Bush is nothing more than
his attempt to stall the exit from Iraq so he can blame the
next president for “losing” Iraq. Yes, Bush is that cynical
and self-centered.
All this escalation will do is provide more American targets
for the Sunnis and Shia to kill.]
.
Pentagon officials cautioned that a modest troop increase could lead to
more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and
fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to
attack U.S. troops.
[NOTE FROM ME: Excuse me but “Sunni insurgents ‘ are NOT the
only ones targeting Americans. American military people are
ALSO being targeted and killed by Shiites.]
Even the announcement of a time frame and mission — such as for six to
eight months to secure volatile Baghdad — would play to armed factions
by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs warned
the White House.
[NOTE FROM ME: The Iraqi fighters, whoever they are and
whatever side they are on, will just melt away into the
population or go out into the countryside and WAIT until we
are gone or our troop levels are reduced again, and THEN they
will return to Baghdad refreshed and rested — and ready to
resume their murderous ways.]
Then there was the thorny problem of finding enough troops to deploy.
Those who favored a “surge,” such as Kagan and McCain, were looking for
a sizable force that would turn the tide in Baghdad. But the Joint
Chiefs made clear they could muster 20,000 at best — not for long, and
not all at once.
The Joint Chiefs came to accept Bush’s wishes, especially after new
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates traveled to Iraq last month with the
Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, said a U.S. official familiar
with the trip. Gates met with Maliki, who laid out more details about
the Iraqi plan for Baghdad.
[NOTE FROM ME: There is enough baloney in the paragraph above
to keep every delicatessen in America going for a year. The
ONLY reason the Joint Chiefs are speaking up now is that Bush
NOW wants them to speak up and say these things. The Joint
Chiefs will say whatever Bush and Cheney and the Defense
Secretary want them to say. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have
made certain that NO one got to be one of the Joint Chiefs
UNLESS he clearly understood that his role was NOT to give any
advice that conflicted with what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld
wanted to hear. Any of the Joint Chiefs who didn’t “get” that
are long gone and put out to pasture.]
“That gave them enough to define a mission and its objectives,” the
official said. “They came back satisfied.”
In the end, the White House favored the idea of more troops as one
visible and dramatic step the administration could take. One senior
White House official said this week the president concluded that more
troops are not the only ingredient of a successful plan — but they are
a precondition to providing the security the Iraqi government needs for
political reconciliation and other reforms.
Tonight, this source said, the president will explain “that we have to
go up before we go down.”
[NOTE FROM ME: I ask you: Can you imagine President Lincoln
EVER uttering such nonsense in the middle of the Civil War, or
FDR in the middle of WWII? Bush is very good at slogans; the
problem is that he can never get past the slogan stage]
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Read this at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901872_pf.html
LikeLike
irak is nothing,the world is everything.
i quote:
Baghdad/Tehran – US forces accompanied by military helicopters on Thursday stormed the Iranian consulate in the Kurdish city of Arbil, arresting five Iranian employees, a Kurdish security source said…….
The raid came a day after US President George W Bush said the United States would confront Iran and Syria, accusing them of fomenting violence in Iraq by allowing insurgents into the country and supporting attacks on American troops.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1242138.php/US_forces_storm_Iranian_consulate_in_Arbil_arrest_five
LikeLike
Hi Gaf,thanks for pointing out this dangerous new escalation symptom.
LikeLike
NP,you are welcome
LikeLike
By the way, I have hyperlinked the word ‘Iran’ in the post now, to link to info on the long term anti Iran war strategy.
LikeLike
And my last comment, on Iran, makes comment #1000 since this blog started.
LikeLike
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/The%20Middle%
20East/Iraq/Bush_Plays_Va_Banque.html?seemore=y
Chronicles Online
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bush Plays Va Banque
by Srdja Trifkovic
***If Mr. Bush lacks the good sense to find speechwriters capable of
coming up with new clichés for such important occasions, it is hardly
surprising that his new plans, strategies, or blueprints for Iraq
also look barely distinguishable from those preceding it.***
“Va banque” is a risky strategy deployed most commonly by emotionally
unstable or inexpert players, usually with disastrous results. In
essence it means risking the balance of one’s capital on a single
card, or roll of dice, or spin of the wheel. In extremis a seasoned
pro may resort to it, but usually he will do so in conjunction with a
radical change of strategy to reverse a losing streak and on the
basis of a rational calculation of costs and benefits of his action.
On Wednesday night President George W. Bush announced he was going to
play va banque in Iraq. Evaluated dispassionately and without
prejudice to the many lies and errors that had preceded tha war, his
plan suffers from two major weaknesses. It does not entail any major,
let alone radical, change of strategy. Its one novelty — the
commitment to exert more pressure on the Iraqi government to meet
certain political objcetives — makes the success or failure of the
plan contingent upon the behavior of local actors over whom Mr. Bush
has diminishing control, and whose motives and goals are very
different to his own.
While it contained many elements present on previous such occasions,
it has escaped most commentators’ attention that Mr. Bush’s speech
had an uncanny semblance to his address at the U.S. Naval Academy in
Annapolis in November 2005, when he unveiled his “clear strategy for
victory.” The largely-forgotten “National Strategy for Victory in
Iraq,” outlined by Mr. Bush to the graduating class of Navy cadets,
rested on three pillars:
“On the political side . . . we’re helping the Iraqis build a free
society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the
interests of all Iraqis . . . engage those who can be persuaded to
join the new Iraq, and marginalize those who never will. On the
security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the
offensive against the enemy . . . leaving Iraqi forces to hold
territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted
reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives. As we fight the
terrorists, we’re working to build capable and effective Iraqi
security forces, so they can take the lead in the fight—and
eventually take responsibility for the safety and security of their
citizens without major foreign assistance.”
To that end, Mr. Bush added, out, “we have increased our force levels
in Iraq to 160,000—up from 137,000” to fight “an enemy without a
conscience.” As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political
process advances, he went on, “we will be able to decrease our troop
levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the
terrorists.” But, he concluded,
“victory in Iraq will demand the continued determination and resolve
of the American people . . . In Iraq, there will not be a signing
ceremony on the deck of a battleship… We will not turn that country
over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk. Iraq will
be a free nation and a strong ally in the Middle East—and this will
add to the security of the American people.”
One year, two months and two thousand American lives later, last
Wednesday Mr. Bush announced that U.S. force levels in Iraq would be
increased to 153,500—up from 132,000. We are still engaged in a
struggle against “the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq [who] are
without conscience,” that struggle is still decisive for “the global
war on terror — and our safety here at home.” And once again we were
told, word for word, that “there will be no surrender ceremony on the
deck of a battleship.”
If Mr. Bush lacks the good sense to find speechwriters capable of
coming up with new clichés for such important occasions, it is hardly
surprising that his new plans, strategies, or blueprints for Iraq
also look barely distinguishable from those preceding it. The “deck
of the battleship” metaphor displays a doubly patronizing attitude:
it assumes that the public will not notice, or mind, that it is being
fed recycled platitudes; and — worse still—that the public does not
grasp the intricacies of a challenge as complex and multi – layered
as Iraq.
Mr. Bush’s diagnosis for the failure to provide security to ordinary
Iraqis thus far is that “there were not enough Iraqi and American
troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists
and insurgents,” but this time Iraqi and American forces will have a
green light to enter those neighborhoods, and Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki “has pledged that political or sectarian interference
will not be tolerated”:
“I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq’s other leaders
that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government
does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of
the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi
people… America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it
has announced . . . America will change our approach to help the
Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks.”
What Mr. Bush fails to grasp is that there is no “Iraqi people” as a
coherent polity that shares the sense of common destiny and common
aspirations. Mr. al-Maliki’s pledges are worthless. He and his fellow
Shiite Islamist politicians don’t give a hoot for “the Iraqi people”
outside the confines of their own community. They are not concerned
about the support of “the American people” either — if that support
(or lack thereof) was capable of being translated into actions and
policies on the ground, American forces would be withdrawing from
Iraq, rather than increasing their numbers.
Iraq is in the grip of a vicious civil war, whether Mr. Bush accepts
that term or not. By condoning the indecently hasty execution
(“lynching” would be a more appropriate term) of Saddam Hussein, Mr.
Bush has effectively taken sides in that war.
The Shiite leadership, thoroughly penetrated by Iranian agents and
Muqtada al-Sadr’s radicals, will not be intimidated by Mr. Bush’s
threat of disengagement. He has already finished the job for them. If
and when the withdrawal is completed — and it will come, under terms
probably even less favorable to American interests and American
reputation than today — Iraq will disintegrate into three ethno-
sectarian units. President Ahmadinejad of Iran or his successor will
be the main beneficiary. Had Mr. Bush exerted his pressure on al-
Maliki’s predecessors when the Badr Brigades and al-Mahdi’s Army were
first detected embedded inside Iraq’s new security services, it could
have worked. Now it is too late.
*********************************
Dr. S. Trifkovic, Foreign Affairs Editor
CHRONICLES: A Magazine of American Culture
LikeLike
Arab Times (Kuwait City) via Info Clearing House – Jan 14, 2007
> > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16169.htm
> > US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07
> >
> > Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites
> >
> > By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
> > Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
> >
> > KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April
> > 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot
> > missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add.
> > Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush
> > administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn’t include any proposal to
make
> > a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said
> > President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney,
> > Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and
> > other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to
attack
> > Iran in minute detail.
> >
> > According to the source, Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat
> > posed by Iran to not only Saudi Arabia but the whole region. “Tehran is
not
> > playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country’s religious
> > influence to support the aggressive regime’s ambition to expand,” the
> > source quoted Dick Cheney as saying. Indicating participants of the
meeting
> > agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before
> > April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger,
> > the source said “they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony
> > Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United
> > States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007.”
> >
> > Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country
> > in the region, he said “the US and its allies will target the oil
> > installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no
> > environmental catastrophe or after effects.” “Already the US has started
> > sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up will continue until
> > Washington has the required number by the end of this month,” the source
> > said. “US forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be
> > protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot
missile
> > system.”
> >
> > He went on to say “although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and
Secretary
> > of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President
> > Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without
> > any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.” The
> > Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power
balance
> > in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their
> > democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of
> > Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken
> > the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.
LikeLike
Counterpunch – Jan 16, 2007
> http://www.counterpunch.org/gardiner01162007.html
>
> Escalation Against Iran:
>
> The Pieces Are Being Put in Place
>
> By COL. SAM GARDINER
>
> The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of
> February. The United States will be able to escalate military
> operations against Iran.
>
> The second carrier strike group leaves the U.S. west coast on January
> 16. It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the
> United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also
> been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.
>
> Maybe as a guard against North Korea seeing operations focused on Iran
> as a chance to be aggressive, a squadron of F-117 stealth fighters has
> just been deployed to Korea.
>
> This has to be called escalation. We have to remind ourselves, just as
> Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting
> groups inside Iran. Just as Iran has special operations troops
> operating inside Iraq, we’ve read the United States has special
> operations troops operating inside Iran.
>
> Just as Iran is supporting Hamas, two weeks ago we found out the United
> States is supporting arms for Abbas. Just as Iran and Syria are
> supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon we’re now learning the White House has
> approved a finding to allow the CIA to support opposition groups inside
> Lebanon. Just as Iran is supporting Syria, we’ve learned recently that
> the United States is going to fund Syrian opposition groups.
>
> We learned this week the President authorized an attack on the Iranian
> liaison office in Irbil.
>
> The White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran.
> Obviously, the facts suggest otherwise. Equally as clear, the Iranians
> will read what the Administrations is doing not what it is saying.
>
> It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy
> to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never
> amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path
> to strike Iran, we’ll see a few more steps unfold.
>
> First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led
> group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran.
> Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release
> stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff.
> The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the
> missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some
> of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they
> were before Gulf II.
>
> I would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the bases in
> Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan.
>
> I think we will read about the deployment of some of the newly arriving
> Army brigades going into Iraq being deployed to the border with Iran.
> Their mission will be to guard against any Iranian movements into Iraq.
>
> As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved
> to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the
> US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that
> happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.
>
> The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans
> to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place,
> however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created
> conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.
>
> [Sam Gardiner is a retired colonel of the US Air Force. He has taught
> strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War
> College and Naval War College.]
LikeLike
I believe other countries cannot understand the underlying problems causing what we can see as violence to others. I believe they should be left for people of like mind to band together and work out ways to fix their own country themselves.
LikeLike
Hi Sheila, thank you for your comment! I think foreign troops from the USA, UK, and Australia make problems worse in Iraq, and there should be actions in those countries to bring the soldiers home.
LikeLike
Pingback: USA: former Reagan aide compares Bush to Hitler | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: US citizens oppose Iraq war | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: British Labour Left opposes Bush’s Iraq war escalation | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Nelson Mandela’s condemnation of the Iraq war | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: United States Yemeni civilians-killing drones and British GCHQ | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: United States presidential candidate Sanders in Los Angeles, report | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: US Republican Jeb Bush has to beg for applause | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Jeb Bush stops United States presidential campaign | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Tony Blair, forever guilty of Iraq bloodbath, his ex-minister Short says | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: USA: Republican rats leaving Bush’s sinking Iraq war ship | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Ugandan Chimps, Healers Use Same Herbs | Dear Kitty. Some blog