Realists in US Tone Down Iran Accusations;
Baquba Dean Executed in Public
Two US GIs were announced killed in al-Anbar Province on Friday. Police found 23 bodies in Baghdad. Iraqi authorities made several arrests, in the small southeastern Shiite city of Kut, of members of a messianic cult that attacked the holy city of Najaf on Sunday.
McClatchy reports that there were two roadside bombings in Baghdad, wounding 3; and a katyusha rocket attack on the Shiite shrine district of Kadhimiya in Baghdad, wounding another 3. In Baladruz in the Diyala province east of Baghdad, guerrillas killed 6 persons. In Diyala's capital, Baquba:
' Dr.Walhan Hameed Al-Timimi, Dean of the College Physical Education in Dyala University was assassinated in full view of the teachers on campus. His son was with him and suffered the same fate. The Staff point an accusing finger at the President of the university, Dr. Alaa' Al-Atbi, saying that he is involved with armed groups and facilitates their tasks by setting up the targets and doing nothing in way of calling for assistance if any attacks took place . . .
The big briefing planned by the Bush administration on supposed Iranian weapons shipments to Iraq had to be postponed because the presentation was judged exaggerated and unsubstantiated by Secretary of State Condi Rice and by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. So that raises the question of who was spearheading this presentation inside the Bush administration? Getting Iran is an obsession of the Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute and their plants inside the administration, such as Iran-Contra felon Elliot Abrams in the National Security Council and David Wurmser and John Hannah on Cheney's rump Veep national security council. Many Neoconservatives and other sorts of wingnut have a secret alliance with the Marxist Islamist MEK terrorist organization, which feeds them allegations about Iran in Iraq just as Ahmad Chalabi used to with regard to the Baath regime in Iraq.
So have the Cheney Neoconservatives been at least somewhat reined in by a new Rice-Gates axis of Realists?
As for the Karbala operation where US troops were kidnapped, a reader with experience in Iraq sends along extensive evidence for the ability of the Sunni Arab guerrillas to pull off sophisticated such attacks, including the infiltration of the lunch room at a US base at Mosul.
Tom Teepen recalls that in the Korean War, Truman and Eisenhower could easily have escalated to conflict with the Soviet Union on the grounds that it was aiding the enemy war effort, but declined to do so. Sometimes one enemy is enough to deal with.
Iranian officials suggest that it is US failures, in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, that drive Bush to scapegoat Iran. Also, Iraqi authorities lifted a curfew in Najaf and surrounding towns as turmoil died down from the conflict with millenarian Shiites of the Army of Heaven.
Jim Lobe has further response to the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate. I am quoted, pointing out that the NIE explicitly acknowledges that a civil war is being fought in Iraq, but that other sorts of violent conflict are also occurring. I'd say that is worse than just a civil war.
The Bush administration is asking for another $100 billion ($100,000,000,000.00) for Iraq (and a little of it goes to the war in Afghanistan). This is off the budget books. It may get figured in eventually, but when the budget deficit estimate was made this fall, it was not included even though Bush knew he would ask for this money. Bush is also planning to ask for another $145 billion, which is also not in the regular budget. Basically, around the time Bush goes out of office we may know what the real deficits were that he ran. Cost of his wars so far adjusted for inflation: $663 billion ($663,000,000,000.00)
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/03/2007 12:29:00 AM
|
Facebook
18 Comments:
Gates may have prevented even further administration credibility decline, but he still lied when he said, "The president has made clear, the secretary of state has made clear, I've made clear ... we are not planning for a war with Iran," which is beyond belief since we've been planning and updating those plans for an attack on Iran since 1980. And it appears no one called him on this quite obvious lie. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16609594.htm
I suspect one reason for this language in the NIE, "Iranian and other outside meddling is "not likely" a major cause of the bloodshed in Iraq," is because the major arms sources to the resistance are from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, and the Gulf kingdoms. As the same report cited above says, "'The vast majority of Americans who are being killed are still being killed by IEDs (improvised explosive devices) set by Sunnis,' said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA and White House expert on Persian Gulf affairs....
'The evidence that I am seeing does not seem to support the level of rhetoric, let alone the military actions' the administration is taking, Pollack said."
Pepe Escobar at AsiaTimes Online has two very good essays on the recent massacre and what he calls the "Axis of Fear," http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB03Ak05.html and http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak01.html
"So have the Cheney Neoconservatives been at least somewhat reined in by a new Rice-Gates axis of Realists?"
That might be true if Cheney et al were reasonable people, but they don't let reality stand in the way of whatever they want to do. We repeatedly make the mistake of under-estimating their level of insanity. Maybe it's wishful thinking on our part. To me, there is every indication that they are preparing an attack on Iran. And they don't bluff. Meanwhile Congress struggles to pass a non-binding resolution disagreeing with sending more troops to Iraq.
The "let's kill Iran" camp in the US, which is not just the neocons, are having a hard time:
1) An Iraq-Iran-Syria summit is due soon, possibly in days. The obvious deal is that Iraq gives assurances that the USA will be asked to leave and that friendly relationships with Iran and Syria are paramount.
2) The plan of getting the Sunni Arab state to align themselves with Israel and fight Iran, on its behalf, has, if anything, backfired. The Saudis are now working closely with Iran, with behind the scenes encouragement from even Turkey.
3) An invasion of Iran is completely out of the question. The neocons have actually destroyed the US military, so it is no longer doable.
4)The option of large-scale air strikes would be fiercely resisted by the Gulf states and the entire world and comes at an enormous price to the USA itself.
The only remaining option to satisfy Bush's lust for war is "holes in the sand". An attack with trivial damage to Iran to "send a message" without provoking a response.
I thought you were kidding with your MEK comment, but you weren't. Wingnuts indeed! To further demonstrate just how radicals these guys in the administration are, contrast former National Security Advisor & Cold Warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 1:
Mr. Chairman:
>
> Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in
> Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling
> them.
>
> It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central
> realities:
>
> 1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity.
> Undertaken
> under false assumptions, it is undermining America's
> global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some
> abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by
> Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional
> instability.
>
> 2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than
> reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed
> framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the
> intensifying regional tensions.
>
> If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody
> involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this
> downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much
> of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for
> a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the
> benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility
> for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in
> the
> U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S.
> military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a
> spreading
> and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq,
> Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
>
> A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted
> and potentially expanding war is already being
> articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the
> war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological
> struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism
> and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al
> Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany
> and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of
> the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World
> War II.
>
> This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was
> based on the military power of the industrially most
> advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only
> the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful
> Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine.
> In
> contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic
> fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist
> aberration;
> most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American
> occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran--though gaining
> in
> regional influence--is itself politically divided,
> economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war
> in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran
> is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region
> has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering.
> Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based
> on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a
> new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is
> increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the
> United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy
> have
> also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism
> toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the
> early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting
> among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It
> took some two decades and a half before another
> Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.
>
> One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares
> the Manichean delusions that the Administration so
> passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of,
> and
> pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global
> posture.
>
> It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a
> significant change of direction. There is in fact a dominant
> consensus in favor of a change: American public opinion now holds that the
> war was a mistake; that it should not be escalated,
> that a regional political process should be explored; and that an
> Israeli-Palestinian accommodation is an essential element of the
> needed policy alteration and should be actively pursued. It is noteworthy
> that profound reservations regarding the
> Administration's policy have been voiced by a number of leading
> Republicans. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the
> much admired President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State James Baker,
> former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and
> several leading Republican senators, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon
> Smith among others.
>
> The urgent need today is for a strategy that seeks to create a political
> framework for a resolution of the problems posed both by
> the US occupation of Iraq and by the ensuing civil and sectarian conflict.
> Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security
> dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals of such a strategy, but
> both goals will take time and require a genuinely
> serious U.S. commitment.
>
> The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should
> involve four steps:
>
> 1. The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its
> determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of
> time.
>
> Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages
> unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going
> civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears
> in the Middle East of a new and enduring American
> imperial hegemony. Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a
> hegemony as the primary reason for the American
> intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That
> perception should be discredited from the highest U.S.
> level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.
>
> 2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the
> Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which
> U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting
> of such a date should be announced as a joint decision.
> In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.
>
> It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders--including those who do not
> reside within "the Green Zone"--in a serious discussion
> regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military
> disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help
> identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity
> to stand on their own legs without U.S. military
> protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond "the
> Green Zone" can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi
> accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi
> regime, characterized by the Bush administration as
> "representative of the Iraqi people," defines itself largely by its
> physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within
> Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily
> armed U.S. military, popularly known as "the Green Zone."
>
> 3. The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders,
> or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to
> all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as
> Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a
> dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction
> with U.S. military disengagement and to participate
> eventually in a conference regarding regional stability.
>
> The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq's neighbors
> in serious discussion regarding the region's security
> problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is
> perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran
> and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent
> regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both
> Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting
> thereby the self-defeating character of the largely
> passive - and mainly sloganeering - U.S. diplomacy.
>
> A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S.,
> could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of
> consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region's
> stability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia.
> Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the
> states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider
> dialogue.
>
> 4. Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and
> energetic
> effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace,
> making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a
> final accommodation ought to involve.
>
> The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed
> both to Israel's enduring security and to fairness for
> the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their
> own separate state. Only an external and activist
> intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows
> that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so
> on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and
> fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom
> any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional
> hegemony.
>
> After World War II, the United States prevailed in the defense of
> democracy
> in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term
> political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies, of
> soberly deterring aggression without initiating
> hostilities, all the while also exploring the possibility of negotiated
> arrangements. Today, America's global leadership is being
> tested in the Middle East. A similarly wise strategy of genuinely
> constructive political engagement is now urgently needed.
>
> It is also time for the Congress to assert itself
Gen. Ray Odierno spoke about Iranian-made IED components and other explosives almost as if it were common knowledge: serial numbers proved the source. End of subject. Slam dunk.
Did Odierno actually have any reports or see any proof? Or was he reciting talking points? Maybe he reads Ledeen in National Review. The notion that there would be serial numbers linked to Tehran is a bit odd. More likely, the detonator devices would include Samsung cell phone parts with serial numbers traceable to Seoul.
Gates, on the other hand, downplays the Iran link as though it were incidental or inconsequential. One side blames Iran and al Qaeda for al the trouble. The other side knows, but is not permitted to say straight, that this is nonsense. Even the skeptical side is under instruction to keep Iran under pressure and give Iraqi and US authorities cover for arrest or destruction of Iran-friendly elements in the Shiite camps.
A better way to spend $245 BILLION
... would be to do it the old fashioned way. Pick four countries... Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Palestine... and pay it to them. What it buys is a security guarantee for all of them within borders they negotiate in return for the money.
This ends all the Chicken Little noise about the survival of Israel, and all the manipulative self-righteousness from the Iranians and Qaeda types wrapping themselves in the Palestinian mantle.
Next, something needs to happen in Iraq. And the core realization has to be that there are really only two issues there: managing the Kurdistan situation in an ethical way that does not threaten Turkey, and dealing with the fact that by toppling Saddam we opened a wound in the regional hegemonic rivalry between the Saudis and the Iranians.
For Kurdistan, we redeploy to their border with Turkey. We don't bother about their borders with Syria or Iran, leaving that problem to those states, unless they decide to play ball with us. We assume they are not threatened from the south and can protect themselves with the peshmirga.
We also redeploy to the Iran/Iraq border, to keep out as much as we can of all types of weapons and personnel infiltration, and to act as a tripwire for any overt Iranian actions.
The dicier situation to manage, of course, is the rough border and interaction between Sunni areas of Baghdad and western Iraq, and the larger territory and population in the southern and western Shiite areas of both the city and country. What seems most sane would be for Americans to station themselves on a de facto border between the two spheres of influence, with a backfill of local Sunni Arab troops from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to keep order and work with Americans to keep down and eventually eliminate the Qaeda types in Anbar. The best outcome here is for some sort of political accommodation between the two sides, based on sharing oil revenue. The worst case is that the Saudis, other oil monarchies, and the Americans have to find a way to make an economically viable state in those areas. However, once the Shiite region is isolated from Iran in the west, and its army and militias can't attack Sunnis in the east, there are many ways that diplomatic and economic pressure could be placed on them to work things out with Iraqi Sunnis.
What is horrid and pathetic is how unlikely this is, despite its obvious viability, simply because of Likudnik factions here and in Israel, and the utter lack of strategic depth and cunning in the Bush administration. The United States needs a Metternichian, Kissingerian coldly logical and manipulative approach in order to succeed... in this case, leavened with an ethical and long-term view. Instead we have the equivalent of Jim Jones as President and Martha Stewart as Secretary of State.
It may be that the American political system is so corrupted by faction and money that no administration competent to manage these issues can possibly be elected. This is how Rome and England and Spain went down, among others, and appears more likely than not.
If some strategy can be devised that allows the region to play for time, eventually the local players will realize what the Americans and Soviets did... that a nuclear war may be militarily winnable, but it is culturally unwinnable. In the prior case both sides eventually caught on that any outcome that involved places like Washington and Moscow being reduced to radioactive slag was no victory, regardless of which country ended up being occupied. Similarly, when Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Tehran, Baghdad, and Mecca are in that state... who won?
At first glance I thought your comments about the Bushies’ use of “intelligence” from MEK to be a joke. Wignuts indeed!
To further demonstrate just how far out this administration is, contrast former NSA cold warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 1
"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II."
Let Hamas Do Its Job.
Last year, in elections judged "extremely professional" by the EU monitor, Palestinians gave Hamas 76 of 132 parliamentary seats because of the "entrenched corruption" and "incompetence" of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, because Hamas had given them desperately-needed social programs, and because it was uncompromising in its militancy toward Israel.
"Hamas runs many relief and education programs. These programs are viewed variously as part of a sincere social development agenda. Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. It funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. 'Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities,' writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services; Hamas’ efforts in this area explain much of its popularity."
Part of Arafat's legacy is an authoritarian Office of the President, currently occupied by Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas. Foreign governments have further strengthened Abbas by training and arming his forces, by honouring him, and by isolating Hamas. The President is not sharing power with the party his nation elected.
Here's an imperfect parallel: last November, Americans gave both houses of Congress to the Democrats because they felt Republicans were incompetent, corrupt, and an abomination at home and abroad. Mr. Bush can choose to either respect or ignore the will of the people. He chooses the opposite of their will - escalation - or 'augmentation' as Ms. Rice puts it. The President augments his sadism, the Secretary augments her euphemism, and both augment their war criminality.
Americans don't like it when their President disrespects the parliament they elect. Palestinians don't like it, either. But there is a difference, isn't there? After all, Hamas equals terrorism. Guess what: until Hamas became the greater threat, so did Fatah. But they've been washed clean by Big Media, just like our brains.
(references at crawfordcandiru.blogspot.com)
The account of the personnel with in the VP's cabal and their reliance on MEK for information is very telling. As for the realists having a chance at altering policy, there was an interesting discussion on NPR the other day about Cheney's tenacious hold on power -- and how he does it. Suskind, Dubose, Turley -- and Laura Rozen who said this:
"Last May Secretary of State Rice that the US would consider joining in direct talks with Iran if Iran would agree to suspend uranium enrichment. In other words, the policy was moving towards possible engagement with Iran, and Cheney’s office kind of waited this out and now you see the policy moving in an entirely different direction -- towards confrontation. The whole State Department is being dragged along with it. Cheney’s daughter was a lead official in the State Department until last summer with people working for her who were leading this new Iran-Syria operation group that are running an inner-agency process for figuring out ways that we can poke at Iran. One of the officials working on that policy group may move over to Cheney’s office. Instead of running it from the National Security Council, it’ll be run out of Cheney’s office. It’ll be very hard for Congress or the press to get insights into what this policy group is working on. Very similar to what was happening in advance of the Iraq war."
And Lou Dubose said: "The White House is out-staffed by the office of the vice president. You know, you have for a time, and I don’t know that it’s still going on -- you have vice president that created his own National Security Council office inside the Office of the Vice President. They read all the email traffic of the president’s National Security Staff. The president’s National Security staff couldn’t read the vice president’s NSC staff. You had White House employees meeting in hallways and talking on phone to avoid email, to avoid the surveillance of a vice president who is just immensely powerful. I don’t see the president slowing him down. I see them working in tandem." http://prairieweather.typepad.com/the_scribe/2007/02/can_cheney_be_s.html
I am skeptical that Condi and Gates are "realists", or reining in Dick Cheney and his Neocons (Sounds like a swing band, I guess it would be Middle Eastern Swing, not Western Swing.) Powell did not rein in Cheney, he took out the most obviously ridiculous parts of the UN presentation on Iraq. Condi and Gates would serve the country better by letting the adminstration embarrass itself with an obviously false presentation than by selecting the most plausible lies to put in the presentation, and making it more likely that we get in a war with Iran.
I will never forget that Condi Rice described the August 6 PDB as a 'historical' document. Gates's greatest accomplishment in his career has been to distort intelligence (okay, 'lie') to support a given policy choice. They will never be realists.
"...Cost of his wars so far adjusted for inflation: $663 billion ($663,000,000,000.00)...."
It sickens and hurts us deeply, and we are not even Americans or U.S. Taxpayers.
Imagine if all this spending was on education, medical research, alternative energy... Imagine how Iraq would have looked like if this cash spent on actually building a new building for real, rather than on world famous, multimillion dollars “paint stroke jobs”,
military bases that will be eventually mothballed. Imagine how many Disney like amusement parks you can build all over the Middle East for the children of the region.
Did anyone take accounting of how much of this 663 Billions actually make it back to U.S. economy legally and illegally to buy the whole Dow through offshore shell companies? We said it before, this is the smartest, most ingenious wealth transfer vehicle ever invented, and you even get the one paying for it, die for it. Have you read Kissinger’s “Depopulation-Resource Management Report” that was de-classified. I guess this will fit right into the master plan.
Ooohhh, take the red pill, read on…
This is really sad: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2007-02-03T170627Z_01_L2828035_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2
It's one of the worst in awhile.
Can this insanity ever end ?
How can a smallish group of people come up with an idea, a concept that is crazy and ill-formed, and foist it off on a whole nation, and involve unwillingly most of the world in one way or another ?
Never mind .. I more or less know the answer, and they have been laying the foundations and preparations for a long time.
Which is IMO why it will probably need to be pried from their cold fingers somehow, because it will not be let go of just because a large mass of people want it to be otherwise.
This means both Republicans and Democrats .. the USA has managed to destabilise enough that calming things down, and supposedly reconstructing nations and societies, will happen (or not) with the backdrop of at least 1/3 or 1/2 the Earth's population being deeply angry at the USA for many years to come.
The next elections will not fix this particular kettle of (very) angry fish, as I am sure all of your readers know and understand.
Cost of his wars so far adjusted for inflation: $663 billion
But at least he got Osama.
Right?
And to put the cost in perspective, this summary of US war costs, adjusted for inflation to 1990, pretty well makes clear this is the only war that cost us more than WW2.
Dr. Cole:
Re: the 100 billion USD upcoming request for continued wars.
Perhaps you could address this issue of Democrats being unwilling to use their constitutional authority to cut off funds in the following context:
1) Are the Democrats really worried about being blamed for 'harming our troops'? Isn't it possible for them to stipulate that the funds be used only to scale down operations, pay for flights out of Baghdad, continue with training operations and security for reconstruction, medical treatment of soldiers, etc? Would that be very difficult to communicate to a US electorate that is against the war?
or, instead...
2) Are the Democrats being very cynical in thinking that if they PRETEND like they have no choice but to hold their nose and let the president do his surge, that they relieve themselves of any responsibility for future failure?
Pelosi today said that the surge is "the one last chance" for Bush's war to succeed. If it fails (which it will), then Bush will be left with essentially no support for continuing the war, and there will be no lingering questions from McCain during the election along the lines of "if you had only given us the chance to do it right, we would not have had to withdraw and leave the country in chaos."
The longer this Bush-led mess continues, the lower the republican party will get dragged. Then 2008 will simply be Democrats tip-toeing over dead bodies to the presidency.
Of course, if the Democrats really are this cynical, it's a horrifying indication of their lack of concern over the lives of thousands of innocent iraqis, as well as the troops they voted to send into battle.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Bugjah-
Democrats and Pelosi are not cynical. They don't have enough votes to cut off funds. The Democrats barely have enough votes to pass a non-binding resolution that Senate Republicans will not block. Even that may be blocked unless at least 10 Republicans are brought on board. Look at how the Senate Republicans have perverted the minimum wage bill as an example of the difficulties in passing anything. Voting to cut off funds and losing would empower Bush. It would be easier to pre-empt action against Iran and expanding the mess.
The one chance to reverse Iraq policy was in 2004. The American people voted to support Bush. The next chance will be 2008. Most of the top Republicans including McCain support the Bush policy. The executive, not Congress conducts both diplomacy and the military. Bush can always play chicken with Congress. Change in Iraq and Middle East policy can only come with a change in president.
Dr. Cole,
Can you really use the word "realist" and Condoleeza Rice in the same sentence?
just as a point of fact, elliot abrams isn't a "felon" -- during Iran-Contra he was only ever charged with misdemeanors, which were pardoned by Bush I.
Post a Comment
<< Home