Linda S. Heard
Online
Journal
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
By this evening, George W. Bush's "New Way Forward"
is likely to become public. It is likely to consist of a troop
"surge" designed to help quell the "insurgency"
and sectarian conflict within Baghdad and the surrounding area
with the help of Iraqi forces.
It is also expected to include programmes to boost jobs and reconstruction.
Most experts believe it is too little too late. Some say an anticipated
increase of 20,000 US troops would be a provocation resulting
in further bloodshed. Others contend they will be sitting ducks.
General Wesley Clarke told the Independent that "US troops
have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness
and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be 'held', or
even that they are fully 'cleared'."
The policy is a slap in the face for American voters, who made
their disillusionment with the war in Iraq crystal clear during
the November mid-term elections when the Democrats took control
of the House and the Senate. The Democrats have made their opposition
to a surge known.
At the same time, it is thought the Democrats won't dare to deplete
the administration's war chest for fear of being labelled unpatriotic.
Yet if they offer tacit agreement to the plan, they risk angering
their own antiwar base. Cindy Sheehan and friends are already
on the warpath, or rather peace-path, heckling Democrats to stick
to their pre-election promises.
Sticking to his guns
It seems likely that Bush will get away with sticking to his
guns, literally. It doesn't matter that most Americans and Iraqis,
according to polls, want closure on this failed enterprise that
has cost so much in lives and treasure.
It doesn't matter that a growing number of top generals, think
tanks, pundits and even Republican politicians want out. And as
for the painstakingly drawn up Iraq Study Report, written off
as a surrender document by the right-wing media, that was a no-go
from the get-go.
Bush and his new top commander in Iraq, General David H. Petraeus,
who unlike his predecessor is a devotee of the surge theory, are
in the minority. The "surge" is unpopular with just
about everyone, so what could be the president's motives behind
his pursuit of this course?
There is a range of theories. The most simplistic is the president's
ego is too big and too fragile to admit failure by walking away.
It could be that Bush is steeped in denial, neoconservative ideology
or messianic musings to the extent failure isn't an option.
In any case, all he has to do is appear to enthusiastically stay
the course for the next two years when he can hand the mess over
to his successor to clean up. Thus, he may escape a possible place
in history as the worst US president ever.
Moreover, as long as the nation is kept at war, the commander-in-chief
is unlikely to face impeachment for misleading the country over
Iraq's touted WMD and links to 9-11.
The above are cynical analyses, which may or may not hold water.
But here's what we do know.
The US is massing a large naval and air force in this region.
On Saturday, three Virginia-based amphibious assault ships began
their journey to join the USS Dwight Eisenhower, the USS Boxer
and the USS John C. Stennis. The ships have little part to play
in quelling the Iraqi resistance, so what are they doing here?
Nuclear bunker busters
A much-quoted article in the Sunday Times may contain a clue.
Quoting Israeli defence force sources, the article says Israel
is planning to use nuclear bunker busters against Iran's Natanz
uranium processing plant and conventional weapons to destroy nuclear
facilities at Arak and Isfahan.
Israel was quick to deny these claims, even as Israeli military
strategists suggest force may be the only way to prevent Iran
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
In the event Israel was foolhardy enough to take such an aggressive
step, Iran has already vowed to retaliate against both Israel
and its ally, the US, which could explain the contingent of 20,000
American naval and aviation personnel based on carriers and warships
in the neighbourhood.
A planned strike on Iran by either Israel or the US, or both,
could also account for the troop "surge" in Iraq, which
in this case would be geared towards taking on pro-Iranian Shiites,
such as Moqtada Al Sadr's Mehdi Army or Abdul Aziz Al Hakim's
Badr Brigades.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has already been ordered
to purge the police and army of sectarianism and crackdown on
Shiite militias. Asked to turn on his own religious Dawa Party
supporters, it's no wonder he's in a hurry to quit the job.
Al Maliki and his colleagues are also preparing to hand Iraq's
oil over to Western oil companies for a 30-year period under a
controversial new law concocted by the US. Once again, the Iraqi
people's interests are being sold down the Tigris.
Excuse the cynicism again. But, frankly, Bush's reluctance to
walk away from Iraq isn't really surprising when one looks at
the big picture. Blood may be thicker than water but obviously
it isn't nearly as thick as black gold or as alluring as permanent
bases, designed to facilitate America's regional dominance for
decades to come.
Email
