Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has told Israeli newspaper reporters that sanctions against Iran were not working and that an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear development sites was becoming “unavoidable.”

“If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

“Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable,” said the former army chief who has also been defense minister.

One question…does this mean that the US and the Bush Administration can stop banging their own war drums about Iran? Not likely…and here’s why.

Iran has already said that any attack on Iran will result in retaliations against Israel AND any US targets available.

Iran still claims to be developing nuclear capabilities for non-military, civilian use only. But the rhetoric from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the right of Israel to exist has only sought to increase skepticism about Iranian nuclear ambitions.

But why is this a US problem anyhow? We now have confirmation that Israel has their own ready nuclear strike force. Why can’t we let them take care of this themselves like the did with the Iraqi nuclear program in the 1980’s and like the claim to have done when bombing a Syrian facility not long ago? Are Iranian nukes really a US problem- a problem that requires another costly war and further raping of the US treasury by unsavory “contractors?”

Unfortunately, US foreign policy is so entangled in the Middle East, and so heavily in favor of Israel, that any Israeli strike would likely suck US forces into the abyss, especially if it occurs while Bush is still steering the ship of state. Experts believe that Iranian nuclear facilities are more numerous and better defensible than Iraq had in the 80’s or than Syria was building. As such, unless Israel unleashed the power of her own nuclear arsenal, a protracted ground and air war could likely ensue, requiring assistance to Israel.

One has to wonder whether this entire Iranian nuclear problem is largely the making of the Bush Administration. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks, Bush included Iran in his official “Axis of Evil” club, putting the Iranians on notice that they were in the sights of the warmonger in chief. Add a couple hundred thousand US troops at their doorstep in Iraq, an increasing presence in the Straight of Hormuz, and it’s no wonder that Iranian government officials would worry about their own country’s security.

Still, it’s hard to have empathy for the Iranian government. After all, they have been clear sponsors of terrorism for decades and have been a vocal foe of the US since the deposition of the CIA-installed Shah in the late 1970’s. (Actually, Iranian resentment of US interference in their government runs deep and back to the 1950’s when the CIA backed a coup to reinstall the Shah to power. His harsh rule created theenvironment for revolution that swept the Islamicists into power. And our government’s backing of the Shah turned their enmity towards the U.S.)

If Israel does attack Iranian nuclear facilities they could respond in kind. If that occurs, we’ll be pulled in. Which in turn could inflate other Arab nations to join Iran against the US and Israel. This is how regional conflicts grow and suck in other nations. This is how world wars begin.

Bush knows his stance on Iran is unpopular in the states. He doesn’t much care. Perhaps this is his way of getting to attack Iran anyhow- by getting Israel to start thingsoff. Or maybe he’s still trying to help bring on his fundamentalist base’s idea of Glory on Earth- the beginning of the end.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

Most of the world has known, and accepted, that the Bush Administration “cooked the intel” with regards to Iraq and forced the United States into a war of choice that has cost far more in money and lives than we were expected to accept. In proving that they are only several years behind the curve, the U.S. Senate today issued a report that blames the Bush Administration of leading the nation into war under false pretenses.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration’s main cases for war — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists — were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

“The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia in written commentary on the report.

At the same time, a British newspaper is today reporting on a secret deal between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government that, if agreed to and signed, would keep the United States in Iraq indefinitely with more than 50 military bases, allow the US to conduct military campaigns against “terrorists” without Iraqi authority, keep control of Iraqi airspace, and offer immunity from Iraqi law for all Americans working in that country, whether employed by the US government directly or through one of its mercenary contractors.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

Of course, immediately on the heels of the article in The Independent, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq comes out with the denials. Which is why we know that this “secret plan” as revealed is more truth than not.

“I’m very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks, that, no indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing.

Translation: Yes, this is exactly what we’re trying to do, and if it weren’t for you darn kids and your stupid dog we’d have gotten away with it.

Iraqi politicians and Iraqi’s in general seem to be opposed to any such deal, and US officials fear that if the plan is put to a general referrendum it will fail.

Public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Iraqis also widely view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty. (msnbc.com)

Which could explain why the Iraqi government is being put under great pressure to finalize this deal in the coming months. With a signed accord in hand, Bush could not only claim (once again) Mission Accomplished, but he could tie the hands of the next president by agreeing to a long term treaty.

Or would he?

Although almost every precedent Bush has engaged in has been unsavory at best and un-American at worst, he has initiated a precedent for ignoring treaties signed by past US administrations that could be useful in this case. Clearly, following the lead set by Bush, our next President could duly bypass any Bush-signed treaties that would bind us to Iraq for several generations. We already know what McCain thinks-he’s happy to keep us embroiled in Iraq for another 100 years. But a President Obama might just decide that any Iraq treaty engineered by Team Bush and coerced through a reluctant Iraqi government isn’t worth the toilet paper its written on. He’d be right too.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

“This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration,” Gingrich said. “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.” (Raw Story has the full video clip here.)

To begin with, I’ve yet to see or hear convincing evidence that the Bush Administration actually deserves credit for the lack of attacks by terrorists on US soil since 9-11-01. Where Gingrich credits the administrations illegal domestic wiretap programs for halting domestic terror attacks, I think the closer truth is that a combination of US action in Afghanistan, a shift of targeting by the terrorists towards Europe and the Middle East, and the historical patience of the terror gangs is why America hasn’t had another attack.

Conservatives publically lamenting the lack of terror attacks on America isn’t new with GIngrich. We’ve heard this before- in 2004 and 2006 and even more recently during this election cycle. In an effort to bolster support for Bush’s most unsavory anti-terror tactics, GOPers have verbalized their wish that some terror attacks would occur.

In 2005:

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President’s fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

And again in 2007:

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Dennis Milligan, head of the Arkansas GOP said on June 3, 2007.

These people are undeniably crazy for power, it seems, if they truly wish for the death and destruction of their countrymen and women just to “validate” George W. Bush and his policies.

Remember this when you go to the polls-only one party actually wishes for terror attacks on America to justify their abuses of power at home and abroad.  The party that brought you the Iraq Debacle. The party that brought you Katrina. The party that brought you torture and spying on Americans. The party of massive deficits, distrust of science, and no capacity for true compassion, caring or common sense. That party is the GOP.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

When the Bush administration thinks it IS one.

Despite a current intelligence report that indicates that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003, current and former members of Team Bush continue to assert that Iran is a looming threat to American security and the security of the world because of their continued nuclear ambitions, which Iran insists are being developed for civilian purposes.

Is it just me, or are these the same kinds of warnings trotted out by this administration before the Iraq invasion? The same kinds of warnings that were discredited both before and after that invasion, and have since been proven to be not only wrong, but really wrong? For opponents of the administrations hawkish mentality, this Iran intel reversal comes as no real surprise. That Team Bush would overhype, misstate, or even intentionally lie about something of great importance, like whether or not to bomb the hell out of a foreign country, is simply par for the course for this group of malignant politicos. What is shocking is the fact that the information is seeing the light of day before the bombs start flying. Bush, Cheney, and their “never been to war but happy to send others” cadre of criminals have been building the case for war with Iran for well over a year now, perhaps much longer if you interpret the “Axis of Evil” designation in ’01 to be the start of the ramp up to war. At each turn and opportunity they have been eager to paint a picture of mounting crisis while twisting themselves into pretzels to pretend to be trying all possible means to avoid war. But it’s war they want, make no mistake. And it’s war they’ve been pushing for. And now it looks like they won’t get to play GI Joe in Persia after all.

Sadly for the president (but much less sadly for the rest of the rational world) the debacle that is Iraq, his lies and mishandling of the intelligence for that action, his administrations total lack of post-war planning, the fraud and graft from war profiteeerer’s, the mounting death toll, and the financial house of cards about to collapse had already turned the public into a wary mistress regarding war towards Iran. The new intel that says that Iran quit trying for nuclear weapons over 4 years ago is like the sound of that mistress slamming the window shut on her wayward lovers’ fingertips.

For Bush to continue to push war rhetoric against Iran now, in the face of intelligence that says they are not making weapons and thus present no imminent danger to the United States, shows us more than ever how deluded and myopic this man can be and in fact is.

Reality check: Iran is no friend of the United States. But that’s no reason to start a war. Especially when the intel bears evidence that they pose no real threat to the homeland, nor are they in any position to do so any time soon.

If Bush had any brains at all he’d be making political hay out of this intelligence report. He could be using this newly released information, along with recent “successes” in North Korea (apparently they US does deal with “terrorists” as the Bush administration has been able to secure some concessions from Kim Jung-Il, similar to those extracted by the Cinton administration but derided by Team Bush perviously) to make limited claims of success stemming from Iraq. Bush could be trying to assert that it was his brilliant Iraq War plan that drove these other “Axis of Evil” member states into submission. He could at least stand up and say something to the effect of “Hey, these guys see what happened to Iraq and decided to shape up a bit.” Hell, the public might even buy it. I’m sure our elected Democrats would latch on to that to deflect their own shabby war record. But Bush isn’t saying anything of the sort. Nope…instead he’s saying we need to keep the pressure on Iran to ‘fess up to their deeds.’

Looks to me like there’s not much to fess up to, unless you want their president to apologize for his rhetoric. But asking for that would be too hypocritical for even Bush, now wouldn’t it?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

This photo (again from ABC News) shows a proud schoolmaster and teaching staff as they send their apt pupils off with their new skills. One wonders if they dispense actual certificates or simply strap on the vests right then and there.

The photo (and others, as well as a videotape) was obtained from a Pakistani journalist who had been invited to the event to document the occasion. On the videotape, a Taliban military commander, Mansoor Dadullah, was shown introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

“These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from
faraway places,” Dadullah says on the tape. “Why shouldn’t we go after them?”

Apparently this guy didn’t get the “we have to fight them over there so they don’t follow us home and fight with us here” memo the president sent out. Fortunately, there’s no possible way even one of these guys could make it into the US. After all, President Bush has personally done everything possible to make sure that our land borders are secure enough that we at least know who is coming in and going out, and he’s done everything a guy could do to make sure that airport security isn’t just a sham, and he’s even tried to keep an eye on all of our ports so that nothing bad could slip in through there. Yessiree, these Suicide Teams haven’t got a chance against the US.

Tell me again why we left the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight Saddam in Iraq?

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action
against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman
told Bob Schieffer. “And to me, that would include a strike into… over the
border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which
they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

If the U.S. does not act against Iran, “they’ll take that as a sign of
weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region
and ultimately right here at home,” Lieberman said.

He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying
insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

“We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there’s any hope of
the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for
instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,”
Lieberman said. “If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force,
and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what
they’re doing.”

And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state. Here’s a clue Joe…America doesn’t want the war to expand. We want it to end. This whole business of attacking nations to stop gangs of terrorists really isn’t the best way to go. More cells and plots have been disrupted through police work Joe. And fewer civiliains die that way too. Oh, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

And to think that if Al Gore had won (I mean been declared the winner) in the 2000 election, America’s Vice-President would still be Dick Cheney, albeit with a different name. If that little realization isn’t a wake-up call to what a complete farce this whole two-party system pretends to be, I don’t know what is. In American politics, there is only one party that rules the roost-the fund-raising party. And whomever gives the most money to help keep the politicians in office (i.e. – power) gets to mold the rules of the game. And make no mistake- the loss of over 3500 US service people is just a part of the game to them. Pieces on the board so to speak. An expected and acceptable cost of imperialism, I mean corporatocracy, I mean exporting democracy, I mean fighting terror.

Hawkish Joe. The People’s Man. The Independent.

It may well be that Iran (or elements within Iran) is training or supplying insurgents who then come across the border into Iraq to fight against American troops there. To pretend though that this is something that the US, nor any ‘civilized’ nation, would undertake to do is ludicrous. In fact, the US is doing just that right now. According to this New York Times article, America is now arming more and more Sunni Arab groups (who also are know to us as insurgents, sectarian rebels, or former Saddam Baathist bastards) to fight against suspected al-Qaeda terror cells in Iraq. Unfortunately, the vast majority of violence in Iraq, aside from the targeting of US troops from both sides of the sectarian clash, is Iraq Sunni fighting Iraq Shia. In that light, the odds of US arms being used against US troops is pretty good. That chance that they will be used by the Sunnis against the Shia (and remember-most of Iran is Shia) may serve to inflame Iranian concerns about this war at their back fence. Hell, by arming the Sunni groups, Iran may well have credible claim that the US ” has a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iran to kill our soldiers.”

Joe has determined that talking just isn’t going to work with the Iranians. After all, “if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,” said Joe on CBS. Again, it’s conceivable that others around the world feel the same way about the American government under George W. Bush. Hell, it’s not only conceivable, it’s the fact Jack! Er, Joe. For all this talk about “living according to internation rule of law” give me about a minute and I can pull up hundreds of reminders of America’s own high standards of the past half decade. Do these words ring a bell? Torture. International kidnappings (arrests/detentions/disappearances) by covert US operatives on foreign sovereign land. Here’s a tip Senator. Don’t preach the talk if you can’t (and demonstrably haven’t) walked the walk. Especially you, Joe “My Ego Is More Important Than The Will Of The People” Lieberman. Especially from you.

But what’s scarier than hearing former Demcorat-turned faux-Independent Joe Lieberman call for the bombing of Iran? The certainty that Joe’s appearance this Sunday morning was not so much the rantings of a man who longs for face time and relevance but rather a carefully pre-planned event from the bowels of the Bush Administration to start spreading the lubricant for sliding into Iran. After at least a year of denial that the US would seek to engage Iran militarily, despite leaks about prepared war plans and increasingly hostile rhetoric between the two countries, Team Bush may finally be letting the cat out of the bag, via good old Joe Lieberman, a man who (if you are a neo-con or party loyalist republican) you can almost trust since he left the Democrats (who are a bunch of wimps), or (if you are a democrat or anti-war American) a man you most certainly despise for his glad-handing with Bush. In either case, the Bushite’s can simply remain silent on Joe’s performance, leaving the general public to mull over what may come next. And seeing how the American people aren’t too supportive of a military showdown with Iran, even over it’s nuclear activities, perhaps the only way Cheney’s former corporate boardroom buddies can get into Iran is by relying on less spectacular half truths and building inuendo to push war to the next level.

I’m not dovish on Iran as a matter of absolute principal. Under certain conditions, I could well see the US engaged in some kind of legitimate military actions in the Middle East. But those conditions do not include conflating situations already out of hand with those that need not become so.

We may not trust Iran enough to hold face to face talks at high levels. They surely don’t trust us. Neither party has given the other any reason to do so. But trust, and therefore a more amicable (or at least non-confrontational) relationship, isn’t likely to sprout out of a bombing campaign either. />
(cross posted at Bring It On!)

While liberation is sometimes synonymous with free, occupation is almost always associated with repression, especially by those who find themselves living in the occupied country. Having been told that that initial war was meant to bring freedom and democracy to their country, regular Iraqis can only sit in incredulity as they see the shambles their country has become. Indeed, if this is the path to freedom, many doubtlessly would have chosen to leave bad enough alone. But once ‘liberation’ has gone out the window and all you are left with is occupation forces, it becomes difficult to sit back and wait for the promise of self-determination to begin. After all, Iraq was promised a democratic government. So far, all they’ve gotten is more bloodshed and a paralyzed parliament.

Increasingly, the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil has led to factional divisions within Iraq itself, as our lack of effective provisional governance created a vacuum of power in Iraq that has been filled by a rash of sectarian rebel groups, terrorist organizations who moved in to fertile training grounds, and disaffected Iraqi citizens fighting for their daily existence. Our lack of planning, competence, and ability to engage Iraq and its neighbors in finding peace has exposed the emptiness of American colonialism sans intelligence and revealed an American system of capitalist-controlled corporate governance that shares no values with the people of America, let alone Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. Being exposed as such, the modern “Iraqi Street” has concluded that American democracy has only destroyed their once secular (albeit despotic) government and replaced it with a daily bloodbath where no one is safe, where you don’t know your enemy from your friend, and where each walk outside may be your last.

Our moment as liberators quickly transformed into an eternity as occupiers who have become little more than catalysts for chaos. And as yet, there seems to be no end in sight. President Bush has all but said that he’ll never leave Iraq while in office, meaning that more US troops will die needlessly, more Iraqi’s will die needlessly, and the flames of Mid-East tensions will continue to rise, fueled by arrogance and idiotic decisions from the Oval Office.

Unless…..

Unless the Iraqi’s have anything to say about it. In an under-reported story out of Iraq, the Iraqi parliament yesterday passed a binding resolution that will guarantee Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. The bill would require any new extensions to be approved by the parliament instead of the Prime Minister, as is now the case. And Iraqi lawmakers have indicated that when given the chance, they’ll block any future extensions of the mandate that do not contain specific timelines for withdrawal, meaning that coalition (read: mostly US) troops would no longer have UN cover to remain in Iraq. Without that cover, any foreign troops in Iraq would legally be considered as an armed occupation force, not so unlike the Japanese when they conquered parts of China back in the 1930’s. In other words, the overwhelming impression by Iraqis that American troops are now an occupying force would become a matter of international law and not just an overwhelming national opinion.

Of course, with George W. Bush at the helm, I have no doubt that he will ignore any such actions from the Iraqis. After all, democracy is great to this president, so long as he’s the one calling the shots. Remember, he’s the decider guy. But if the Iraqi’s pass this bill, and if they refuse to extend any further UN mandates that do not contain specific timetables for ending this conflict, expect this war to grow larger as other Arab nations in the region reach out to their Iraqi neighbors against American insolence and intransigence. And expect America to lose more and more of her foreign support, perhaps becoming even more of a target than she is today.

Six years ago America was ruthlessly attacked by a group of religious zealots who got lucky and were able to take advantage of our laxity. That was a monumental tragedy and represented an internal failure on our part. In the six years since that day, America, under Geroge Bush and Dick Cheney, has done more harm to herself and to world peace than any Middle Eastern mullah could have hoped for. And in the process, they have guaranteed that “freedom and democracy” aren’t going to be embraced in the Middle East any time soon.

Nice job guys. Nice job.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

So we’re in the nation building game, and since we’re the ones who blew the hell out of the place, I suppose that we have some responsibility to at least get the place fixed up a bit before we go home. Or do we? I mean, if the nation we are helping build is supposed to be a democracy (of sorts) then it seems only right that our presence should be limited to the extent that the majority of that country’s citizens (or elected officials as the proxy of the citizens) wish us to remain. Once the balance tips from one side of the scale to the other, we need to acknowledge that decision, pack our bags, and promise to stay in touch.

Guess what? We’ve been asked, more or less, to start packing our bags. According to a story that isn’t getting any play in the American MSM, an Iraqi parliamentary vote on Tuesday had more than half of Iraq’s elected lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal. The non-binding petition will be presented to the speaker of parliament with the request for a vote on a formal binding resolution that adopts the petition’s demand for a withdrawal timetable.Hey- we asked for a democracy, and we’re getting one. Can’t cry foul when it doesn’t go your way.

Unless, of course, you are George Bush or Dick Cheney. The White House Wonder Twins seem to have an almost superhero ability to ignore reality. (And their ability to lie is almost as powerful, but that’s another story altogether.) See, the administration is taking a somewhat different approach than the Iraqi’s seem to want. Rather than prepare to disengage, they keep sending in more US troops. Instead of listening to what the Iraqi’s are saying, they are telling the Iraqi’s how it should be. I guess that 6 years of telling the American public what to do and how to feel, they think that everyone is as gullible. Sorry Dubya- the folks in Iraq live with the bombs of your nation building every day. They don’t seem too keen to wait for you to act anymore.

The Alternet article goes into some detail about the factional problems in Iraq and the barriers that are keeping them apart. Chief among them is the future of Iraq itself- specifically whether Iraq should remain as a strong single entity or as three separate and somewhat autonomous regions under nominal federal controls. Increasingly, Iraqi’s seem to be choosing the strong single entity model over the tripartite solution now favored by the US backed Iraqi government. One sticking point in that discussion has been the sharing of oil resources under each plan. Under the tripartite plan (favored by Team Bush remember), oil controls would be privatized and decentralized, leaving the door open for all sorts of great deals for Big Oil. Under the strong state model, the Iraqi oil fields become state property, meaning other nations will have to play nice to get access.

No matter how many times we go around the bend it always comes back to who gets the oil. With the oil comes the money. With the money comes the power. You know the drill.
The thing is, no matter how (or if) Iraqi lawmakers vote on demanding a timetable from the Bush Administration, they’re never going to get one. Not from Dubya at least. As far as he’s concerned, the U S of A ain’t going nowhere on his watch. And if the Iraqi’s have a problem with that, then they may just find themselves on a watchlist too. Iraq is a really dangerous place these days, despite what John McCain thinks. Dissidents of US desires may find themselves at risk, if you get my drift.

Even though many in Baghdad acknowledge that when US troops leave, the violence will likely get worse before it gets better, a majority of all ethnic groups want the US to get out. And the sad thing is that just about everybody knows it’s time to hand Iraqi’s the keys to their new house and let them get busy with the unpacking.

(Oh, and for those of you who decide to turn the comments section into a debate about “Yes there are terrorists in Iraq you idiot” I suggest you get a grip on reality. There are terrorists in America too but we haven’t bombed the hell out of our own towns. Anyone here think the Pocono’s need a good bombing? )

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

This post’s title words were said by current president George W. Bush, way back in 1999 when he was just a lowly governor from Texas and not the Decider-in-Chief.

The full quote, published in the Seattle P-I, and referencing the Clinton Administration’s actions and policies in Kosovo, is:

“I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command. I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load.”

Bush also lamented Clinton’s “lack of an exit strategy” in this Houston Chronicle quote:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

(thanks to ThinkProgress for the articles.)

Yet in his very own war, Bush has turned around 180 degrees, much as Cheney did when he cautioned against going to Baghdad after Gulf War I only to aggressively pursue war with Iraq after coming aboard as Vice-President.

Recent quotes from Bush:

“I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. … I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job. ” [President Bush, 4/23/07]

The double-standard is obscene, but the rationale is clear. Kosovo wasn’t an oil nation, nor did it fit into any kind of biblical end-times scenario. Iraq satisfies both of those criteria for far right evangelical foreign policy aims. And Bush is the most far right, evangelical, biblical literalist we’ve ever had sitting in the Oval Office.

Oh, and he’s also a dirty rotten liar, a double-talking politician, and a wannabe theocratic despot.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

The country we call Iraq was created by the French and British, carving up territory won from the Ottoman Empire after WWI. Without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north, Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq . (Wikipedia) Prior to the creation of the present-day boundaries of Iraq, the various ethnic and cultural peoples did not consider themselves to be of one nation. Only under the iron fist of dictators and strongmen could Iraq exist as a political reality. Remove the tyrant and the facade melts away. Anyone with a few minutes and an ounce of perspective could have surmised as much before starting a war over there. We know our leaders thought long and hard on this whole Iraq mess. I guess it’s the ounce of perspective they lack.

When it comes to Iraq, Bush is like the kid in junior high school who learns that the girl he had a crush on didn’t like him back. But instead of getting on with life, he becomes a stalker, sending friends over with “do you like Gerogie” notes, and trying to get invited to the same parties. The difference here is that instead trying to get a seat next to the girl in the cafeteria, Bush is sending a generation of American’s into a hellhole of his choosing, as if to say, “If I can’t have you, nobody will.”

We begin the fifth year of American corporate warfare with over 3200 dead American soldiers, tens of thousands of seriously wounded veterans, hundreds of thousands of emotionally injured troops, millions of affected wives, husbands, and children, tens of millions of displaced Iraqi families (the use of Iraqi here is used in the current meaning to identify any number of ethnicities in the region formerly know as Iraq), and an entire region of the world in chaos. That’s a lot to pay for something that was never there to begin with. For something many pretended was there even though it never was. For the artificial construct that is Iraq.

Once the dictator fell, and once the people realized that the conquerors were just after the resources under the sand (that is, that for the American government Iraq represented a massive wealth transfer operation disguised as any number of changing rationale) and would not continue to rule with a strong hand, or with any hands at all, the long-buried but unforgotten ethnic enmity returned, and the reality on the ground today is at least as historically motivated as it is terrorist-driven or anti-occupationist in nature. In essence, the bloody chaos in Iraq is a violent reminder of what happens when imperialism carves up the world for itself.

The Iraq War can not be won by conventional military means wrought upon the people of Iraq by the American military. It did not work in Vietnam. It is not working now. You do not democratize a people by killing every other one of them and starving the rest of work, food, modern essentials and sanitation. Even if the vast majority of Iraqi citizens wanted to work with the American’s to restore their country, they would still be consumed by fighting amongst themselves for eventual internal control. Under the assumption that victory in Iraq must be measured by the establishment and continued viability of a single, unified, national democratic government, victory is all but impossible; defeat all but assured. No amount of American soldiers will change that reality. No amount of treasure. No amount of tears.

The Bush Administration’s insistance on maintaining the facade that Iraq is a unified nation and must remain so is likely a major contributor to the inability of elected Iraqi legislators to achieve any sort of progress. They do not want to be unified. They do not consider themselves as brother’s in arms. They are Kurds or Shia or Sunni. Then they are of their family group and town. Only after that might they consider themselves as Iraqi. The sectarian violence and relative peaceful Kurdish region separated in the north are testaments to that idea.

Often the neo-cons and other war supporters will claim that those who want the war to end have no ‘plan to stop the war.’ The truth is that they just aren’t (a)listening, (b) comprehending, (c)realistic or (d) any of the above. Stopping a war is actually pretty easy when you have a defined enemy. You call a formal truce, arrange a peace treaty meeting, make agreements, and cease armed hostility. It can’t be done overnight, but it certainly can be done.
When faced with an amorphous enemy or one who has no desire to make peace with you, you have no alternative but to fight until one side can fight no longer. Or until one side can be convinced to fight no longer.

In Iraq, we face both scenarios. If America were to accede to at least listening to ideas that Iraq divide into three autonomous regions such talks could lead to a drastic reduction in sectarian violence and reduce the elements of civil war that now engulf much of Iraq. There have been talks of a tripartite oil revenue commission to fairly distribute oil wealth from the former Iraq to the three new sovereign nations. Such talks could lead to the political solution that even our military leaders have said is the only realistic path to take. And frankly, it should make no difference to us (or the Bush Administration) if the end result is three friendly countries or even 2 friendly countries in the region instead of one. Unless of course, if by acceding to such a plan, or even to talks, it would irreversably let loose the grip Team Bush and their cut and run corporate buddies like Halliburton have of all that oil.

In addition to prompting a sectarian cease-fire, the possibility of ethnic autonomy could lead to a concerted effort by each group to help root out the real terrorists in their midsts so as to speed up their own path to their self-determined future. And with renewed effort, American’s could work with and train “Iraqi” units in each region to restore order, moderation, and modern living to the regions.

And for those terror groups with whom we must ‘fight to the end,’ at least we’d have the ability and the cooperation to actually disrupt and end their murderous reign over civilians and soldiers alike.

Unfortunately, it’s really the oil that the Bush-puppet has been in love with all along. All the way back to the first Iraqi invasion, when the fledgling neo-cons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their dark little minions begat their foul plan for oil domination in the Middle East. And that’s why they’ve continued to come up with excuse after excuse to validate their horrific misadventure. And that’s why American troops will never leave Iraq so long as Bush is president and Cheney is still in line for the job. And frankly, I’m not all that confident in the Democrats ability to rectify the solution either.

Victory in Iraq means that Iraq no longer exists. But in it’s place could stand three new, strong, modern, and moderate nations that at the very least could be ambivalent towards the west and at the very most long lasting allies in a new middle east
.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)