This is an excellent analysis that I found on the World Socialist Web Site on the Iraq Study Group, founded in March, and “bipartisan” in nature.
The bad news is that this bipartisan group, headed by trouble maker James Baker, is proposing a blood bath in Baghdad.
Riverbend beware: it may get much worse, before it ever gets better.
As the analysis points out, there are elements in the democratic and republican party, that include Bill and Hillary among others, that simply won’t let go of dreams of empire in the Middle East.
American citizen beware. Empire will be bought and paid for with the lives of your sons and daughters, and the financial security and well being of this country.
To top it off, the New York Times is complicit with the findings of the Iraq Study Group, and appears to be backing the proposed bloodbath in Baghdad:
The deteriorating military and political situation for the US in Iraq now requires the apologists for US imperialism at the Times to justify in advance a massive escalation of American violence.
At the point in his commentary where Gordon defines the US mission, he omits, significantly, any mention of democracy. Citing American generals who speak of the “larger American mission in Iraq,” he writes: “Their assessment is that if Baghdad is overwhelmed by sectarian strife, the cause of fostering a more stable Iraq will be lost.”
Following the evolving line of the Bush administration, the mantra of a “democratic” Iraq is shelved. Democracy in Iraq has always been a façade to conceal Washington’s real war aims: seizing control of the country’s oil riches and establishing a subservient client regime and military beachhead in the Middle East.
However, the downgrading of “democracy” as the purported aim of the occupation coincides with high-level discussions among US policymakers about ousting the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by means of a military coup, should he continue to resist American pressure to disarm Shia militias that are hostile to the US presence.
An earlier article in the Times, published on Sunday (“US to Hand Iraq a New Timetable on Security Role”), cited “senior American officials” who indicated that one of the alternatives under consideration is to “give the Iraqi Army the lead role in domestic security, downgrading the role of police units.” A turn to the Army for policing operations would represent a turn to military dictatorship and the enlistment of the traditional Sunni officer corps to attack Sadr and his militia.
Gordon’s commentary is typical of the Times’ cynical and dishonest coverage of the war. After quoting Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, commander of American forces in Iraq, as stating, “As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq,” Gordon adds his own comment: “It is hard to see how any Iraq plan can work if the capital’s citizens cannot be protected.”
Protected from whom? The Times depicts the American military as the protector of the Iraqi people, even as it promotes plans for a massive assault on Baghdad neighborhoods.
The formation of the Iraq Study Group is truly disturbing, as it demonstrates how the interests of the two parties are played out in foreign affairs…
I’m not saying that every democrat running for office would support such a group, but it is interesting that there has been not a peep from democrats on the Iraq Study Group, and its apparent enormous influence in possibly creating policy in regards to the war.
It is also questionable as to whether a so-called anti-war candidate, and how many are there, really, could maintain their opposition in the face of such “institutional” support in both parties for creating empire in the Middle East.
No, it is going to be up to the American people to generate this grass roots opposition to the war, and so far, I see most simply waiting for democrats to take control of Congress, the Senate or both. This may not mean a change in war strategy, and it may mean more escalation either way, particularly without a significant grass roots effort to end the war.
Cindy Sheehan cannot do it by herself.
You may draw your own conclusions. I think there are too many members of both parties who still, to this day, believe the costs are worth the losses, in terms of lives and the quality of life for American citizens, not to mention Iraqis.
It is certainly a blood bath with no end yet in sight.
The ISG’s mission statement makes clear there will be no criticism of the Bush administration. The Iraq Study Group, it declared, will “conduct a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for US interests”. That is, its purpose is not to hold anyone to account for the illegal invasion of a sovereign state; the lies told to the American people about “weapons of mass destruction” and Iraqi links to 9/11; the death and destruction that has resulted; or the tensions the war has created throughout the Middle East. As Baker told the US press, it was not going to “dwell on the past”.
The Democratic Party rushed to provide assistance. Republican Frank Wolf proposed the formation of the ISG to Congress in March with the support of leading Democrats such as Senator Joseph Biden. It enjoys the solid backing of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Lee Hamilton, a leading figure in the Congress throughout the Clinton period, accepted an invitation to serve as the ISG’s Democrat co-chair. Hamilton was an obvious choice. He was co-chair of the 9/11 commission, which covered up the Bush administration’s role in that disaster and can be expected to do the same on Iraq.
The other prominent Democrats on the 10-member commission are William Perry, Clinton’s defence secretary; Leon Panetta, Clinton’s chief of staff; Vernon Jordan, a close confidante of Clinton; and former senator Charles Robb. As well as Baker, the Republican Party is represented by former CIA director Robert Gates; former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor; Edwin Meese, attorney general in the Reagan administration; and former senator Alan Simpson.
The willingness of the Democrats to take part in such a body underscores a basic truth of contemporary American politics. The Democrats, just as much as the Republicans, are determined to preserve and extend the US grip over the Middle East and its oil resources. Both parties are equally committed to the perspective of using military force to block any challenges to the waning US dominance over world politics and economy. While millions of Americans want an end to the violence, the US ruling class is plotting new wars against Iran, Syria and North Korea, to name just the most immediate targets. In the meantime, there is a consensus in Washington that the situation in Iraq must be brought under control.
