Also at Kos.
I don’t like to fall into full-bore paranoia, but after watching the Bush administration for six years, I’m more inclined to credit conspiracy theories than I am to believe in coincidence. One the eve of Mr. Bush’s New Years announcement about his new Iraq strategy, I more than suspect that America is about to be pushed into a full bore neoconservative policy of militarization from which it will take decades or longer to extract ourselves.
Over at Juan Cole’s Informed Comment, Larisa Alexandrovna paints a grim and all too likely scenario:
The administration is stalling as it supposedly weighs its Iraq options, when in fact they have already made their decision… One need only look at the slow leaks coming out, not the least of which was Joe Lieberman’s op-ed in the Washington Post, to understand that we are going to be sending more troops to Iraq…
In the meantime, naval carriers are deployed to send Iran “a warning,” as though the threats thus far and the passing of sanctions are not warning enough. Add to that the detainment of Iranian diplomats invited to Iraq by the Iraqi leadership. Why is the US arresting diplomats invited to a country that the US claims is a sovereign nation governing itself?
…given this entire context, ask yourself again why Saddam Hussein is being executed now, during Hajj even? What is the urgency?
Like Alexandrovna, I see a major escalation of the war in the Middle East being provoked. Some major act of terror or sectarian violence will likely occur; perhaps something in England or the U.S. Iran, now the “likely suspect” behind any and all violent extremism, will be blamed. U.S. naval and air strike forces will be in place to conduct an attack against Iran.
The possibilities are frightening. With increased violence in Iraq (or even without it), Mr. Bush will encounter little opposition to increasing ground troop levels in that country. Thanks to the provisions in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that allow a president to commit forces to combat for 60 to 90 days without permission from Congress, Mr. Bush can order strikes on Iran on his own authority.
In an open-ocean fight, Iran’s maritime forces would be no match for the United States Navy. But a naval battle between Iran and the U.S. won’t take place in open-ocean; it will happen in restricted waters of the Persian Gulf (and possibly the North Arabian Sea), environments in which Iran’s coastal defense/sea denial navy has asymmetric advantages that allow it to exploit the vulnerabilities of America’s power projection naval forces. Moreover, Iran’s maritime forces don’t need to score a decisive victory over our Navy. A single missile or torpedo or mine hit on one of our ships will be a big enough sting to embarrass us.
Unfortunately, it will also be sufficient justification for Bush to escalate a naval and air operation against Iran. Thanks to Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker and Alexandrovna’s revelations in Raw Story, we know that plans for just such an operation have been in process for some time.
War and Empire
We also know that the neoconservative cabal that put young Mr. Bush in the White House to sponsor its imperial policies still has its hand on the helm of U.S. policy. The proposed option to boost troop levels in Iraq and the overall personnel end strength of the Army and Marine Corps came from Fred Kagan. Kagan is a confederate of Bill Kristol, founder of the infamous Project for the New American Century (PNAC), publisher of The Weekly Standard and the son of Irving Kristol, who is considered to be the “godfather” of American neoconservatism.
Fred Kagan and Bill Kristol both admit that an increase of troops in Iraq would not be a “surge.” Kagan admits that to be effective, the surge would have to last 18 months or longer. It’s more likely that Kagan wants to see the “surge” last 18 years or more.
And there’s little question that Bill Kristol wants us to confront Iran militarily. It’s even clearer that the neocons want to ensure that diplomatic efforts do not work, and even though charter PNAC member John Bolton is gone from the UN, charter PNAC member Dick Cheney is still the vice president of the United States, so you can bet two mortgage payments that the administration will continue to create foreign policy crises for which the “only” solution is military action or “capitulation.”
Even without a GOP majority in Congress to rubber stamp his every empirical whim, Mr. Bush is still the Commander in Chief of our military, and will continue to act as a unitary head of state regardless of whatever efforts the Democratic Congress may make to rein him in. And from every indication, he’s still listening to the Fools and Fanatics who got us into our present fiasco, and who are encouraging him to create a quagmire so big that no future leader, however wise, can extract us from.
And the Dick Cheneys and Bill Kristols and Fred Kagans of this world will high-five each other behind closed doors in the American Enterprise Institute building in Washington D.C. as America transforms itself into a permanent militaristic oligarchy with theocratic underpinnings.
#
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.
I’ve said before that I basically used to be a political pollyanna even though I grew up during Vietnam, Watergate, and the assassinations of many of our leaders yet somehow from the minute bush literally stole the election in 2000 ‘pollyana’ disappeared. I even remember telling my sister that I was sure bush was going to do his damndest to get us into WW111. Even at that I think I was only half serious not really believing the buffoon in office would be that stupid. No my real paranoia kicked in after 9/11 and has only gotten worse as bush swaggers around as if he thinks he’s Gary Cooper when instead he is one of the characters in ‘Doctor Strangelove’.
I now wake up every day thinking this might be the day one of the goon squad tells bush the hell with it lets just go ahead and bomb Iran and be done with it except of course that might just be the beginning of Armageddon for us.
I see that by a new poll (by whom, I don’t know), American’s think Dubya is the world’s biggest villian.
I’ll have to look into this some more.
My thinking is that all this pressure for Bush to confront the reality of the disaster in Iraq has only provided incentive for him to escalate. He is a person who does not admit defeat, does not easily say he was wrong, and who does not ever want to change direction without a clear political/financial gain in mind. Having no personal view that permits him to see a change that will wrap him in glory, he will continue, no matter what the polls say (opinions and votes can be manipulated), or the generals (they are expendable, and more can be found who will agree with him), or members of Congress (they’ve given him blanket permission before, and he intends to keep using it).
I fully expect escalation. There’s nothing in his history or his personality to think otherwise. I’m not much on psychologizing individuals that I do not know personally, but there’s ample evidence that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I fear the worst for the next two years, and that could lead far beyond, just picking up the pieces, if that will even be possible.
As we close out 2006, Patrick Cockburn writing for The Independent, UK reviews the history of Iraq 2006, after Saddam to his guilty verdict.
“A country awash with blood and for America, after Saddam capture, fake turning-points” and very dangerous ideas”
What options are open to U.S?
“[A]fter the horrors of this year, Sunni and Shia will hardly be able to co-operate closely in future. The sense of Iraqi identity may have been damaged beyond repair. But, more than most states, Iraq is dominated by its capital and Shia and Sunni will continue to fight to rule Baghdad until they either win or know there is no hope of victory.”
==
What will Bush be tempted to do? Take your pick:
A risky throw of the dice for Bush
"A 'surge' of the size possible under current constraints on US forces will not turn the tide in the guerrilla war," warned Lang, who noted, along with many other experts in the past month, that the reinforcement of thousands of US troops in Baghdad since last summer had actually increased the violence there.[..]
"Those who believe still more troops will bring 'victory' are living in a dangerous dream world and need to wake up," he added, conceding, however, that it may appeal to Bush for that very reason. "He wants to redeem his 'freedom agenda', restore momentum to his plans, and in his mind this might 'clear up' Iraq so that he could move on to Iran."
=
=
so ahead
A Very Dangerous New Year
– Robert Parry
“The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to “double-down” his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.” [..]
“Betting the lives of American soldiers and countless civilians across the Middle East, Bush will follow the age-old adage of gambling addicts: in for a dime, in for a dollar.
===There’s stiff opposition coming from both sides of the isle. I say if he is emboldened by the November 7th referendum on Bush, Sen.Arlen Specter (R-PA) is the one to watch.
Specter has disappointed before, but of late he’s acting real Independent – just back from Israel via Syria where he met with al-Assad. TWN has a note on Specter’s take.
.
TORONTO (IHT) Nov. 3, 2006 — A majority of people in three countries with close ties to the U.S. — Britain, Canada and Mexico — consider President George W. Bush a threat to world peace, ranking the U.S. president right up there with the leaders of two countries he has labeled part of the “axis of evil” — North Korea’s Kim Jong Il and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In Britain, 91 percent said they considered bin Laden a great or moderate danger to peace, while 78 percent said that about Bush, the poll found. Kim, whose country tested an atomic bomb last month, was considered a danger by 82 percent, Lebanese Hezbollah militia leader Hassan Nasrallah by 78 percent, and Ahmadinejad by 74 percent.
Britain Canada
Osama Bin Laden Al Qaeda 91 88
Kim Yong-Il North Korea 82 86
George W. Bush U.S.A. 78 74
Hassan Nasrallah Hezbollah 78 74
Ahmadinejad Iran 72 77
Majorities in Britain, Canada and Mexico — 69 percent, 62 percent and 57 percent, respectively — said U.S. foreign policy has made the world more dangerous since 2001.
The poll, commissioned by the Toronto Star and La Presse in Canada, The Guardian in Britain, Reforma in Mexico and Haaretz in Israel, surveyed 1,000 people in each country at the end of October. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Since Nasrallah got thrown in there you’d think it only fair that someone might have questioned Israel’s policies.
You know, I never gave much credence the Mayan Calendar ending on the winter solstice in 2012. But maybe they had it right. I feel I can already smell the nuclear radiation. At some point, some country – Britain, China, Russia, India – someone is going to stop us the only way possible – with a nuclear weapon. No, it won’t be Iran, but if one comes, you can bet it will be blamed there.
It’s really a frightening time to live in.
And that’s all the more reason to begin impeachment proceedings ASAP!! That’s perhaps the only way to derail the juggernaut that is the Bush administration.
“Remember the Maine”
The Gulf of Tonkin “incident”
WMD’s in Iraq
Every few decades a new testosterone generation comes of age and decides to prove their manliness. The only problem is that we haven’t won a major war since the end of WWII. How many more wars do we need to lose before people start to realize that we are a former superpower?