The new year began on the hopeful note that Bush’s
illegal war in Iraq would soon be ended. The repudiation of Bush and the Republicans
in the November congressional election, the Iraq Study Group’s unanimous conclusion
that the US needs to remove its troops from the sectarian strife Bush set in
motion by invading Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld’s removal as defense secretary and
his replacement by Iraqi Study Group member Robert Gates, the thumbs down given
by America’s top military commanders to the neoconservatives’ plan to send more
US troops to Iraq, and new polls of the US military that reveal that only a
minority supports Bush’s Iraq policy, thus giving new meaning to "support
the troops," are all indications that Americans have shed the stupor that
has given carte blanche to George W. Bush.
When word leaked that Bush was inclined toward the "surge option"
of committing more troops by keeping existing troops deployed in Iraq after
their replacements had arrived, NBC News reported that an administration official
"admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision
than a military one." It is a clear sign of exasperation with Bush when
an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American
troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions.
The American establishment, concerned by Bush’s egregious mismanagement, moved
to take control of Iraq policy away from him. However, recent news reports and
analysis suggest that Bush has turned his back to the American establishment
and his military advisers and is throwing in his lot with the neoconservatives
and the Israeli lobby. This will further isolate Bush and make him more vulnerable
In the January 5 issue of CounterPunch John Walsh gives a good description
of the struggle between the American establishment and the neocons.
Peter Spiegel, the Pentagon correspondent for the Los Angeles Times,
reported on January 4 that the neocons have used the failure of the administration’s
policy in Iraq to convince Bush to launch an aggressive counterinsurgency requiring
the buildup of troop levels by extending deployments beyond the agreed terms.
Raed Jarrar suggests
that the Shi’ite militias, such as the one led by Sadr, are the intended targets
of the "surge option." There seems no surer way to escalate the conflict
in Iraq than to attack the Shi’ite militias. For longer than the US fought Germany
in WWII, 150,000 US troops in Iraq have been thwarted by a small insurgency
drawn from Iraq’s minority population of Sunnis. It hardly seems feasible that
30,000 additional US troops, demoralized by extended deployment, can succeed
in a surge against the Shi’ite militias when 150,000 US troops cannot succeed
against the minority Sunnis.
The reason the US has not been driven out of Iraq is that the majority Shi’ites
have not been part of the insurgency. The Shi’ites are attacking the Sunnis,
who are forced to fight a two-front war against US troops and Shi’ite militias
and death squads.The US owes its presence in Iraq, just as the colonial powers
always owed their presence in the Middle East, to the disunity of Arabs. Western
domination of the Muslim world succeeded by not picking a fight with all of
the disunited Arabs at the same time.
Attacking the Shi’ite militias while fighting a Sunni insurgency would violate
this rule. If Bush ignores US military commanders and expert opinion and accepts
the surge option advanced by the delusional neocon allies of Israel’s right-wing
Likud Party, US troops will be engulfed in general insurgency. This is why General
John Abizaid resigned on January 5. He wants no part of the Republican Party’s
sacrifice of US soldiers to sectarian conflict.
In recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, Republican Senator John
McCain, who believes in the efficacy of violence and not in diplomacy, pressed
General Abizaid to request more US troops to be sent to Iraq. General Abizaid
replied as follows:
"Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey,
the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in
your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now,
does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they
all said no."
Bush is like Hitler. He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his
own insane policy. Like Hitler, he protects himself from reality with delusion.
In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the
Russians from Berlin.
By manipulating Bush and provoking a military crisis in which the US stands
to lose its army in Iraq, the neoconservatives hope to revive the implementation
of their plan for US conquest of the Middle East. They believe they can use
fear, "honor," and the aversion of macho Americans to ignoble defeat
to expand the conflict in response to military disaster. The neocons believe
that the loss of an American army would be met with the electorate’s demand
for revenge. The barriers to the draft would fall, as would the barriers to
the use of nuclear weapons.
Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz set out the plan for Middle East conquest
several years ago in Commentary magazine. It is a plan for Muslim genocide.
In place of physical extermination of Muslims, Podhoretz advocates their cultural
destruction by deracination. Islam is to be torn out by the roots and reduced
to a purely formal shell devoid of any real beliefs.
Podhoretz disguises the neoconservative attack against diversity with contrived
arguments, but its real purpose is to use the US military to subdue Arabs and
to create space for Israel to expand.
Not enough Americans are aware that this is what the "war on terror"
is all about.