It’s sort of like throwing more gasoline on a fire in
an effort to put it out.
“Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday
he would support a temporary troop increase in Iraq only if it
were part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by
early 2008,” reports the Associated
Press. Harry Reid and the Democrats, looking ahead at the
2008 selection and beyond, understand now is the time to cast
about with diluted antiwar rhetoric, even as they nod in the direction
of Bush’s “surge” in Iraq.
Most recently, the “surge” concept—basically,
throwing more troops into the Iraqi meat grinder—was tweaked
by the neocon Frederick Kagan, brother of Robert Kagan, sidekick
of top drawer neocon Bill Kristol, “resident scholar”
at the American Enterprise Institute, where Bush gets his “minds,”
and member in good standing over at the Council on Foreign Relations,
the neolib coven. Kagan has teamed up with retired Army General
Jack Keane, a former member of the neocon infested Defense Policy
Board and director over at the death merchant General Dynamics,
and they spelled out their version of the “surge”
on the pages of the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington
Post.
According to this neocon duo, the United States is losing Iraq
because of lukewarm “half measures” and the only response
is “to change the military mission,” make it “both
long and large” by sending in another 30,000 or so troops.
Size matters, we are told, no matter the U.S. military “has
become dangerously overstretched because of the scale of its operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan,” according to two
reports released earlier this year. In essence, this is a
repeat of William
Kristol’s September Washington Post op-ed piece, where
he called for more troops to be poured into Iraq to “improve
our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment,”
requiring “a substantial surge in overall troop levels …
with the additional forces focused on securing Baghdad,”
where a billion dollar plus “fortress-like” embassy,
essentially a huge Fort Apache, is under construction, using low-paid
and exploited Asian workers under the control of First Kuwaiti
General Trading & Contracting.
As Kristol tells us, there “is now no good argument for
not sending more troops,” never mind the above worries about
breaking the back of the U.S. military. Kristol’s insistence
has nothing to do with “democracy” for Iraqis, but
is of course instead hitched to the larger neocon plan for the
neighborhood, most notably Iran. Kristol cites Harvard Law School’s
William Stuntz, who doubles as a scribe for the Weekly Standard:
“The territory over which we fight is among the most strategically
important in the world. Victory will place the most dangerous
regime on the planet, Iran’s fascist theocracy, in serious
peril. Defeat will leave that same regime inestimably strengthened.
If there is any significant possibility that the presence of more
American soldiers on the ground would raise the odds of success,
not putting those soldiers on the ground is a crime.”
Of course, sending the troops in the first place, predicated
on lies and dissimulation, is a crime, defined as such by international
law, but then neocons don’t do international law, especially
after “everything changed” when Muslim cave dwellers
mutated the laws of physics, a quite normal occurrence in Bushzarro
world.
Kristol and the neocons, however, contrary to the blather of
Reid and the Democrats, are calling for a long-term “surge,”
designed to last out the remainder of Bush’s term, and longer
of course, well into the next selected administration’s
term, as the Democrats, positioned to win the game of presidential
musical chairs, will not “cut and run,” lest they
be viewed as lily-livered liberals in short pants. Kristol elaborated
on December 24:
Naturally, the Democrats are onboard with more murder and mayhem,
never mind the arguments over the duration of Bush’s “surge,”
designed to last for the foreseeable future. Not only was mildly
antiwar Jack Murtha bounced as possible House majority leader,
clearing the path for the warmonger Steny Hoyer, but Nancy Pelosi
chose Silvestre Reyes as House Intelligence Committee chairman.
Reyes, unable to tell the difference between Sunni and Shi’ite,
told Newsweek,
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we
eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have to consider
the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the
militias and stabilize Iraq … I would say 20,000 to 30,000
— for the specific purpose of making sure those militias
are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”
As if to make sure the deck is stacked even more against the desire
of the American people—who, by large numbers, want the U.S.
out of Iraq—the Democrats kissed the toes of the Bush crime
family intimate, Iran-Contra criminal, and consummate liar and
twister of intelligence, Robert Gates, who, as the newly minted
Secretary of Defense, will make sure the neocons get their way.
Obviously, in order to tell the truth, one has to be far away
from the whorehouse, that is to say the halls of Congress, White
House conference rooms, and the inner offices of the State Department.
Recall Colin Powell, who fondly refers to Kristol and the neocons
as “fucking crazies,” on December 17 telling CBS that
a troop increase “cannot be sustained.” In short,
Bush’s “surge” will be a disaster, but then
the neocons deal in disaster, as their master plan is to use up
the U.S. military in an effort to destroy the Arab and Muslim
Middle East, as the Israelis demand.
“A faction [more specifically, a neocon faction] in the
Pentagon among the U.S. commanders in Iraq has been promoting
the surge option to useful journalists such as Michael Gordon
of the New York Times. In the Pentagon itself, sentiment is against
the ’surge,’ at least if you want to believe a report
in the Washington Post. In the Pentagon, they know there are no
troops available, making people serve longer tours promotes mutiny,
and 30,000 more troops would make no difference,” notes
the San Francisco Chronicle (see previous link).
But then the neocons running the Iraq “war” are not
interested in making a difference—they are primarily concerned
with working up a violent lather that ultimately splits the nation
into at least three distinct pieces. As well, they need troops
positioned for the spillover effect of the coming attack against
Iran, on tap before the unitary decider exits office, or rather
steps off the throne, as he was not elected in the first place.
Email
