Facebook Slider
Get News Alerts!
Tuesday, 27 February 2007 05:36

Dr. J's Commentary: The CheneyBush War Policy: Connecting the Dots

  • font size decrease font size decrease font size increase font size increase font size
  • Print
  • Email

The CheneyBush War Policy is becoming curiouser and curiouser. "Things are getting better in Iraq," they say, when they are clearly getting worse. "We must fight on 'victory' " they say, without ever defining what they mean by "victory," and when virtually every other military and political authority on the matter says that no matter how you define it, "victory" is impossible. They and their surrogates in the Congress and the Privatized Ministry of Propaganda label any critics of their policies as traitors. (Yes, "aiding and abetting the enemy" is one of the components of "treason.") So the conclusion that most observers come to is that they are in la-la land, that they are totally delusional. Well, there is another possible explanation: things in Iraq are going exactly the way they planned them to go. Let's connect the dots.

As is very well known, they lied the U.S. into war. There were no WMD and they knew it. There was no Hussein/al-Qaeda link, and they knew it. Even if the famous "Prague meeting" did take place between representatives of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, it is most likely that Hussein's man told bin Laden's man "no" very firmly (and likely in not quite so polite language), for a variety of reasons, ranging from Hussein's secularism to his strong desire not to give the Georgitres any excuse for real to invade his country that they eventually made up.

There was no post-war planning, as is also well known. The U.S. State Department had one, and all 2,200 pages of it were just ignored. There is the much-traveled story that Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone on his staff who even talked about post-war planning.

The museums looting that could easily have been prevented could have part of a plan (well a different kind of plan) to develop permanent chaos. That would explain the staffing of Bremer's pro-consulate by totally unqualified, very young, Republican political operatives: not accidental or careless, but purposeful: let's do whatever we can to gum up the infrastructure even further than it is already gummed up by Saddam and our invasion.

There have been numerous missed opportunities for declaring victory and leaving, from the holding of elections, to the forming of a government, to the swearing in of the Parliament. All opportunities were ignored.

The Iraq Study Group Report provided a perfect cover for withdrawal to begin now. CheneyBush disposed of it before the ink was dry.

Most of us on the Left thought the true goals of the invasion were oil and bases. If that were true, they were achieved, as confirmed by this morning's news that the Iraqi cabinet has come to an agreement over the distribution of oil exploration and operational rights and revenues, which will most likely be approved by the Parliament. And Bush is escalating.

At various times, the major Muslim countries have offered to provide cover for an American departure, especially if it were attached to a real settlement of the Palestine/Israel problem. They were not taken up on those offers.

There is the constant sabre-rattling on Iran. I think that the "Iran thing" is all about sabre-rattling and scaring the American people and nothing else. I do not think that CheneyBush are about to invade and/or bomb. They have very limited military resources, and as noted in BuzzFlash yesterday, might even face a revolt of the generals over it. The "evidence of Iranian intervention in Iraq" consists primarily of some very sophisticated roadside bombs. They might be from the Iranian military with full government knowledge. On the other hand, they might be forgeries or stolen from Iranian munitions dumps and then sold on the black market. But even for CheneyBush, it is hardly likely (never say never when dealing with these guys) that they would/could use them for a justification for carpet bombing Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons, which would go down well only for O'RHannibaugh and their most brain-washed acolytes and nobody else in the world. But CheneyBush are saber-rattling, although Cheney does most of the rattling while Bush, Gates, and Snow say "nothing to worry about." It would appear that all the Sturm und Drang is primarily for domestic political consumption.

Seymour Hersh now tells us the U.S. is funding both sides in the Iraqi civil war and may thus be indirectly funding al Qaeda as well. If you were looking for Permanent War, what would be a better way to keep it going? The more I look at it, the more that's all I see. No other explanation makes any sense, even CheneyBush sense.

And why do they want this? Because, especially with a conveniently occurring terrorist attack in mid-October 2008, that is how, indeed the only way, they could achieve their ultimate goal. And that goal is the suspension of the 2008 elections and, using Blackwater troops, a Christian militia and certain like-minded military units, imposing theocratic fascism on the U.S.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.