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!)

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!)

“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!)

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!)

Highlighted in the report are the following:

There’s the $43.8 million spent on a temporary police training camp that has never even been used.

There’s the $36.4 million for armored vehicles, body armor, and weapons that no one seems able to account for.

There’s the $73 million facility built to train Iraqi security forces that has massive expansion cracks in the walls and trickling sewage from ceilings.

This does not even include all the billions stolen by shady civilian contractors who have been hired to perform certain services for the troops- there’s plenty of billions down the drain there too.

But of course, in the mind of the President, where all is well in Iraq (or at least was until around November 2006) and getting better by the day, what’s a few more billion unaccounted dollars between friends. After all, this Iraq war was all about generating massive corporate profits for the Military Industrial Complex and their derivatives, not about anything so noble as spreading democracy or making the world a safer place.

We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq….

Bush’s plan was immediately rejected by a Democratically controlled Congress, a majority of the American public, a large contingent of world governments, former and current military commanders, most puppies and, of course, the baby Jesus. None the less, Bush stuck out his jaw and pressed forward. The surge was on, will of the people be damned.

In the 13 days that followed, Bush has made no indications that he is going to change his mind. Why should he? He is the Decider-in-Chief, after all. So, despite Congressional resolutions and pending legislation that would variously condemn, chastise, or curtail appropriations for new war outlay, Bush came forth in his State of the Union Address to reassert his administration’s plans for a broader Middle East conflict. Reiterating the themes he presented to the nation on January 10th, Bush told the assembled Congress and the American people that more troops were already being sent to Iraq…

“So we’re deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq.”

No more debate folks, they troops are on the way. Bring on the surge.

Americans have made it loud and clear to this president that they want American involvement in Iraq to come to an end. They have declared that ending the war in Iraq is at the top of their governmental “To Do” list. The president has told the American people to Shut The Fuck Up.

But the president didn’t stop with the war in Iraq in the SOTU adress. He also remembered to ratchet up the threats to Iran. In a thinly veiled attempt to deflect attention to his intentions, Bush reminded us all that his entry into Iraq was legal under a UN resolution…

“Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we’re not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations.”

And in the next breath he declared that:

“The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Taken together with the recent build up of American naval power in the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric of the January 10th speech, it becomes more clear every day that Bush will expand his Middle East initiatives at the first opportunity, all the while claiming to seek a diplomatic solution. Just like before Iraq. Yet it is hard to engage in diplomacy when you refuse to speak to your adversary.

Make no mistake. The surge is on. And it may well not stop in Baghdad.

Bush has finally and very overtly changed the game of American politics. He has unilaterally declared himself unstoppable. He has thrown off the constitutional shackles imposed upon the Executive Branch repeatedly over the years, but has managed to stay out ahead by obstinance and obfuscation. But now he has done something even more bold. He has denied the will of the people he professes to serve, he has ignored the masses who he purports to hold dear. He has donned the rosiest of all rose colored glasses. He is an island unto himself. And that, my friends, is not what the American president is supposed to be.

I support a surge of elected officials demanding investigations into this administration’s covert and extralegal shenanigans.

I support a surge in politicians jumping out of the president’s sinking lifeboat of a party and climbing onboard the USS Sanity.

I support a surge in honest, hard-working Americans protesting online and in the streets against this president and his attempts to embroil this country’s future generations in unending warfare based on fabricated evidence and historical mythology.

I support a surge in scientists condemning the president’s anti-science agenda’s and bringing forth widely accepted evidence to counteract the president’s hired pseudo-scientific spin doctors.

I support a surge in religious leaders condemning the very unChristian antics of this, the Born-Again, Evangelical President.

In short, I support an overwhelming surge against this president, his policies, and his administration hacks who perpetuate this assault on American integrity and security.

I’m supporting the surge. Just not the same one Bush is supporting. On second thought, maybe it’s a purge I should be supporting.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The first pieces of the puzzle came from the president’s speech last week when the president announced that he was sending (more) Patriot missle batteries to the Middle East. In itself, this is a curious thing to do, since the only militaries over there with missle capabilities to worry about are in Israel and Iran. I doubted that Bush was planning to defend Arab countries from Israeli missle attacks, so the conclusion would be that we needed protection from Iranian missles. Why though when we are not militarily engaged with Iran and neither are any other countries directly engaged in war with Iran? What reason would we need to build up missle defenses other than to bolster up areas that Iran could attack if a war occurred? The president also said in that speech that

“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

and

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

In my response to the presidents speech, I noted that “these words, when combined with his calls for an increase in the military in general, seem clearly to point out where the tanks and planes are headed next. Make no mistake—Bush has every desire to extend the Iraqi War into these countries. He has been simply waiting for an opportunity. His rhetoric about Iranian nuclear intentions and capability have been consistently rebuffed by experts who say that Iraq is at least seven years or more away froma viable nuclear weapon. If he goes forth as intended, expect to see border incursions and firefights at both the Syrian-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders, with an eventual crossing of one or both by U.S. troops. Such an escalation would only make matters far worse as nations divide and join sides.”

These were the first real pieces to the emerging puzzle. The next came yesterday in a post here which quoted a Raw Story report that a major investment bank was warning against an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The report claims that Israel, backed by the US, may well be planning an attack while Bush is still in office, since they could rely on US support (at least US administation support) for such an attack. It further notes that Bush’s reshuffling of generals in the Middle East from those who advised against such an escalation with Iran with those more pliable to the Decider’s terrible decisions. With this news, it became more plausible that an attack on Iran, either by the US directly or through the Israeli proxy, may well be forthcoming.

Today, two new reports come forth to reveal even more US military affairs in the region.

In the first, according to a former Russian Fleet Admiral, US submarines currently located in the Persian Gulf are positioning themselves to block the Gulf of Oman, the persian Gulf and parts of the Arabian Sea. Such moves would have the effect of blockading the Iranian coast as well as moving these subs into position for missle strikes against Iranian nuclear and oil targets within Iran. Since the US submarines are not vital in any of the efforts in Iraq, except perhaps for some kinds of intelligence monitoring, their existence in the region brings cause for alarm.

And the second report, filtered through a Kuwaiti news source, says that the US may be preparing an attack against Iran as soon as April. This report is perhaps the least reliable, to me anyhow, because it claims to get its information from an unnamed source who are privy to details of a secret White House meeting between Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gates.

Taken together, even unsubstiantiated, these reports, coming in from all over the place, lead to conclusions one doesn’t particularly like to make. Add to this the recent extensions of US forces in Iraq (perhaps a pre-staging for an Iran attack instead of an effort to quell violence in Baghdad?) and a call to increase military strength permanently, and the emerging puzzle looks even more bleak.

There may well be nothing that can be done to stop this escalation if it does in fact materialize. Even with an opposition Congress to content with, Bush has already proven that he values no other judgement than his own, presumably because that is what God has instructed of him. And history is filled with many monsters who believed they had a red phone to God and look at the damage they have wrought on humanity.

The issue is bigger than just attacking Iran or increasing the level of Middle East disaster. An attack against Iran will be much more polarizing than Iraq has been. Nations that heretofore have only condemned our actions may well take steps to marginalize us. The US may be the worlds biggest economy; we may have the most technologically advanced military; we may be vital to nations increasing wealth creation. None of that will matter. Most of the emerging nations that rely on US buyers to increase their own wealth and standing have a history of repression against their people. The can clamp down on economic reforms and advancements to stymie the US if they think we are out of control. After all, their people are used to harsh conditions and repressive economies. The US is not.

China and Russia both have many dealings with Iran, and they have pretty big militaries too. And the Muslim world would likely not take kindly to an invasion of Iran.

But in fact, I would be surprised if US forces weren’t already operating in Iran, ala Cambodia years ago.

Not content with being merely the worst president in US history, Bush seems determined to be the last as well.
Can anyone say WWIII?

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

Despite the fact that he and his party suffered a sound defeat in the November elections, returning both houses of Congress to the opposing Democratic party; despite the fact that a clear majority of Americans have judged his policies (both domestically and) in Iraq to be abject failures; despite multiple assessments from military, intelligence, and diplomatic professional experts (who, by the way, have more experience collectively and individually than Bush will ever have) that say we need to be finding a way out of the Iraqi quagmire; despite the fact that Iraq is well past the smoldering stages of civil war; despite all these seemingly important hallmarks, the President has applied his hands to his ears and loudly proclaimed, “Lalalalalalala- I can’t hear you, I don’t care.”

Already surmised, Bush says he is increasing troop levels in Iraq, primarily in Baghdad (where the daily death count for Iraqi’s and Americans alike continues to increase) but also in Anbar province, the area he calls the al-Qaeda base in Iraq. At least 20,000 more American troops will be (re)deployed in pursuit of presidential folly. Adding more Americans troops will inflame the Iraqi population and keep providing excuses for the sectarian violence and death squad retributions that are increasingly out of control. American presence, widely viewed as an occupation force by Iraqi citizens, gives each side a reason to attack the other under the excuse of collaboration with America.

Also in the speech was the financial infusion Bush wants to send to Iraq in the form of untold and likely largely unaccounted for billions of dollars to rebuild what we have destroyed and to create Iraq jobs. The notion of a State Department oversight position to “ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq” is laughable considering this administrations (mis)handling of the billions spent so far. If Bush was serious about confronting or eliminating fraud and waste, he would have called for and created an independent (as in outside his administration and Congress) review panel. That he did not shows he still wants to keep real costs as close to the vest as possible as well as remaining able to control the flow of reconstruction information.

Those are the points we already expected to hear. But despite outward appearances, the President’s speech was less about restructuring the Iraq War and more about laying a long term, albeit subtle, escalation of warfare with the added benefit of further decimating the social compacts of America through the systematic squandering of American tax revenue on warfare and its associated costs. Also buried beneath the glossy exterior is the framework to further destabalize the Middle East, through the insistence that only through the adaption of American ideals can the world be safe.

Consider this from the President’s speech:

“We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century.”

Aside from the costs of continued warfare in the Middle East, Bush plans to call for an increase in the military overall. Already the US spends more on its military than most countries combined. That we can scarcely afford our domestic obligations in the process seems to matter not, and indeed, this is a core concept in the neo-con efforts to scale down (bankrupt) government. As military spending continues to increase, at some point it will be necessary to place the costs of this war on the books. Add to that an increased force size, the rebuilding of materiel and equipment depleted, and the Bush plan to create a new generation of American nuclear weapons, and it becomes clear to see that military spending will not only dwarf domestic spending, but completely overshadow it to the point of irrelevance. Such a shift in government spending will have serious effects on the public institutions of health, education, justice, and poverty assistance. And as the military wing of the US government expands at the same time that social programs contract or disappear, the breakdown of the American social system will become more apparent, creating domestic problems and strife not seen in generations. If this happens fast enough (i.e. before Bush leaves office) look for an increase in a domestic police state under the guise of keeping order. But remember, it is all part of the plan.

I mentioned a framework being built that maps out the further destabilization of the Middle East:

“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

and

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

These words, when combined with his calls for an increase in the military in general, seem clearly to point out where the tanks and planes are headed next. Make no mistake- Bush has every desire to extend the Iraqi War into these countries. He has been simply waiting for an opportunity. His rhetoric about Iranian nuclear intentions and capability have been consistently rebuffed by experts who say that Iraq is at least 7 years or more away froma viable nuclear weapon. In other words, plenty of time to try and work something out. But Bush, in classic ‘screw you’ form, has planted the seeds of war in those spoken words. By tying them in as material support for the foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq, Bush has laid down the gauntlet. If he goes forth as intended, expect to see border incursions and firefights at both the Syrian-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders, with an eventual crossing of one or both by US troops. Such an escalation would only make matters far worse as nations divide and join sides.

And I mentioned the concept that Bush holds dear- that only American might, followed by exported American ideals, can bring true democracy to the world:

“We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.”

No matter that much of the Middle East wants nothing to do with American culture and democracy, seeing how poorly it has been applied in Iraq and Afghanistan and watching how the vaunted American Rule of Law has been flaunted by our own elected eladers. Bush ignores all cultural reality and blindly surges ahead with the notion that the American way is the only way to go. What he really means though is that capitalism, controlled by the richest of the corporate giants and reaping trillions in profits off the backs of average human beings, is the only way to go. Unfortunately, a look at the capitalistic laissez-faire policies of the Bush administration has only served to expose the wicked underbelly of our way of life, showing the world that classic American values (values that were once respected and envied) like hard work, dedication, honesty, honor, trust, and fairness are no longer relevant in Bush’s America. What matters n
ow is money- get it, keep it, keep others from having it. The world, and inparticular the Islamic world, has seen that American export, and no amount of worldy advances are making them want to adopt our ever-corrupted way of life. No longer does the world see “a shining city on a hill” when they look to North America. Instead, they see a run down tenement with a seedy landlord at the door banging for the rent while the pipes drip endlessly on the floor.

For their part, the newly elected Democratic Congress is trying to put up road blocks to stop, or at least stall, some of the Bush proposals. Good for them. Frankly, this is why I voted for a federal Democratic ticket. I had no real illusions of them producing great reforms or legislation. I simply wanted them to slow down the Bush juggernaut. To what extent they intend to do so remains to be seen, but the Kennedy Bill in the Senate prohibiting increased funding for additional troops in Iraq is a start. For me, this Congress has a mandate, but it isn’t one of great social change. This congress must be a roadblock and holding effort until Bsh finally leaves town. If that is all they accomplish, I will consider them successful. If they manage to advance a progressive social domestic agenda as well, then it’s frosting on the cake.

Stripped of the rhetoric and flowery jargon, this has to be one of Bush’s scariest speeches to date. Not only does this speech continue to inflate the war in Iraq, it lays the groundwork for a militarized and financially strapped America and plants the seeds for wider military conflict, violence and death. It holds out scant promise for future generations of Americans if this path is followed, yet promises safety in the distant future. It catapults America towards a century of warfare and strife at a time when human endeavors should be better spent on finding new sources of energy, combatting preventable disease, and protecting our planet from our own excesses.

No doubt that the right side of the aisle will be bogged down in the patriotic nuances, the continued attempts to tie the Bush doctrine to the 9-11 attacks, and the overt and covert appeals to America’s narcisstic nature as greatest nation on Earth. No doubt that they will zero in on the mentions of Islamic terrorism connected to American security. But they will see little else in his words, hearing nothing but the words they are comfortable with. They will not dig past the shiny coating to see what lays beneath and the implications that lay ahead. And they will denounce those who write things like this essay as cowards or worse, as traitors. It is easier to denounce a critic than to reflect on ones own failures.

The President has set forth his goals and vision of the future of America, the Middle East, and perhaps the world. It is time now for the newly elected Congress to do the job they were put there to do. Slow down or stop the Bush juggernaut before its actions can cause any more havoc in the world. Bush’s ideas may look nice on paper, but in reality they may be pretty damn scary indeed.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

For a while now, we’ve heard Team Bush lubricate the public with the notion that more troops in Iraq are inevitable, this despite comments from top military folks who don’t think that sending more U.S. soldiers into a civil war is such a bright idea. Now, all of a sudden, those top brass are getting their wrists measured for that golden TImex, because they are out.

(from the link)

Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday.

Abizaid and Casey have at times sounded skeptical about increasing the size of the U.S. force in Iraq.

In November, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that boosting the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 would have a temporary impact, but he warned that the military’s ability to maintain in increase of that size “is simply not something that we have right now.”

Casey told reporters in Iraq last month that he is “not necessarily opposed to the idea” of sending in more troops, but said any increase would have to “help us progress to our strategic objectives.”

Shuffling in are two men who appear more inclined towards bending to the president’s foul wind. So part one of the plan is to toss out those who question and insert compliant tools.

More shuffling is happening with and old Bush family confidante, John Negroponte. His move from NID to 2nd at State is questionable, at least in terms of an “Iraq Policy” move. I’m no fan of Big John here…he has a history of being in just out in front of sectarian death squads in war torn third world countries…so don’t shed any tears at his leaving what should be an unbiased position. (A National Intelligence Director should tell a president what is real instead of fueling his boss’s fantasy filled worldviews.) This move smells more like political manuevering than anything else, tossed into the the “Iraq Plan” so as to not make waves of its own. Some are postulating that Negroponte move to State is a precursor to setting up Secretary Rice as a possible presidential candidate, the thinking going (I guess) that she could give Hillary a good run for the money. But I digress…

The President also wants to loosen the binds on descretionary funds “for reconstruction” that military commanders have control of. As if there hasn’t been enough misappropriations of funds so far. Other financial incentives Bush is pushing to convince Iraqi’s to “all just get along” include setting up a small business loan program. Perhaps that will be included in the new Balanced Budget Bush presents. (As an aside, I wonder what the budget has allotted for American small business assistance?) I guess this war just needs a little less accountability and ready cash to fix the problem.

Oh, and let’s not forget the sanest part of the plan- send in more troops! After all, if we don’t keep fighting them there (and making lots more of them by the way) they’ll be clammoring to our shores and attacking us here. Despite the fact that Bush told you he’s beefed up security around the borders and spending all that money on all that ‘security stuff.’ Funny, if we’re so much safer now, how could they even get here to fight us here? Kind of a paradox if you think about it. Oops…forgot…no thinking in the War Room.

Of course, all of this, though widely reported, is still speculative to a degree. And what the new Democratic Congress can do about any of it is still up in the air.

But don’t be fooled into thinking this is a grand new plan for ‘success’ folks. It’s just another shell game.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)