Letters to the Editor
-
Not quite yet...
Even since George's fateful "mission accomplished" speech of the coast of San Diego, I've read countless "on to Iran"-type theories.
Whatever happened to those detailed plans for the looming US invasion of Iran Seymore Hersch uncovered three years ago, for example?
Not even Bush would be so foolhardy as to so escalate the conflict by giving Iran or Syria the excuses they need to get (officially) involved.
Equally, there's nothing the unpopular governments of both those countries would relish than a chance than the genuine threat of American military action.
A far more likely American response would seem to me to be Israeli-style checkpoints on the major highways between Syria, Iraq and Iran. Of course, what this will do to the faultering economic lives of everyday Iraqis is another question.
Equally, if the bombs do start to fall again, expect America's proxy Israel to have dropped them. One would expect the Bush team to have the sense to not be directly involved.
You scratch my back and I'll turn a blind eye to some more Israeli settlement expansion.
-
Hersh
For the record, Hersh's NYer article, "The Iran Plans," was from April 06, not "three years ago."
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact
-
Meek
Bush43: The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
When this man gets meek I get scared. This is not a man that takes well to meek. He's up to something. God save us all.
-
One Question Answered
"But trapped in an abysmal situation largely of his own making, it is worth wondering what Bush's own secret exit plan might be."
There is no secret or non-secret exit plan.
Bush is leaving the exit and it's associated scenes of panic and shame for his succesor.
-
Highway checkpoints and inadequate troop strength
A far more likely American response would seem to me to be Israeli-style checkpoints on the major highways between Syria, Iraq and Iran.
I'd be extremely surprised if such checkpoints haven't been in place for a long time already. Our military is not stupid, they were just given an impossible chance.
Rumsfeld said he would fire anyone who even spoke to him about planning for the occupation phase after the invasion.
General Shinseki called for "several hundred thousand troops" to invade and occupy Iraq, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publically disagreed with him before Congress. It would be amazing if Rumsfeld were to do that without Bush's specific approval.
-
Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid...
The artifice behind Bush's presidency becomes apparent when he makes a speech like the one he delivered last night. THe man truly comes across as an empty vessel reciting words he had no hand in writing and scarcely comprehends.
That aside, we should be afraid now, because Bush is desperately trying to save his legacy. Pride and hubris, not reason, are the main forces driving policy now. And, despite the fact that he supposedly took blame for the failures in Iraq, his conduct demonstrates that he is unable (or unwilling) to swallow his pride and learn from his myriad mistakes.
Consider:
- Bush vowed to take a look at the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, but rather obviously chucked its book out the window like a petulant child tired of being lectured to.
- Bush has, in defiance of all reason and common sense, refused to engage Syria and Iran diplomatically, out of the infantile belief that it would be perceived as weakness.
I began thinking last night that a coup directed against the Bush Administration might not be such a bad idea. It may be the only way to restore some sanity to our government and foreign policy. And it might have more popular support than one might think.
-
Revisionist History
If you actually read the text of Bush's speech, you'll see a strain of biased historical perspective running throughout:
"Al-Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.
They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate."
This is funny because Bush makes it sound as though everything was going fine and dandy in Iraq until the Golden Mosque was blown up. I mean, forget the fact that this entire war is inherently flawed in conception and execution.
If you want to see an intelligent discussion on Iraq, unencumbered by political rhetoric and spin, check out the testimony of four scholars who appeared before the Senate FOreign Relations Committee on 1/10: Former CIA national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia Paul Pillar, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, Yahia Said of the London School of Economics and Phebe Marr, senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and author of "The Modern History of Iraq."
Fascinating discussion with more real-world assessments and analysis than anything you'll find coming out of the White House these days.
-
Iran and Syria providing support - how about the Saudi's?
Bush once again mentioned how Iran and Syria were "providing material support for attacks on American Troops". Why was there no mention of the "truckloads of money" coming from Saudi Arabia to fund the Sunni insurgency?
-
Obvious analysis
What I found significant about President Bush’s address, as implied by the title of this article, is the challenge to Iran and Syria, combined with the information that another carrier strike group is being deployed to the area.
A carrier strike group has many capabilities, but it is difficult to understand how this deployment is meant to protect shipping or establishing air superiority. I imagine these things are already in place. That implies the carrier strike group’s purpose will be as an offensive weapon, supporting a marine attack force with air/missile power.
Most likely the acknowledgement of the carrier strike group’s movement was because it would have been noticed eventually, which would have raised many questions. By announcing it as a subplot in his address, the President has waylaid the curious. This has already been demonstrated by the general lack of concern in the media about this significant operation.
For those that have followed the clandestine military buildup preceding the Iraq invasion, this movement is from the same playbook. Most probably this strike group is being positioned for one purpose, and that purpose is to become operational. How this will be done may be determined by the positioning of the strike group, and with watching how troops are moved about Iraq.
20,000 troops may be moving into Baghdad, but that does not mean troops already there, or elsewhere, are not being redeployed to other areas. The 20,000 troop’s sole purpose may be to help hold down an armed response in Baghdad that is sure to follow a U.S. attack on a country such as Iran.
By forewarned that military personnel do not cock a weapon without intending to fire it.
(As a side note, the President did not need all the prep time he used to prepare the general policy as outlined in his address, which is the same old same old. You have to read between the lines to see how and why the prep time was needed. The address most likely was delayed because military operational procedures had to be put into place first.)