Retreating Forward – The US in Iraq

Insidious Richard Perle, who with his neocon buddies, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, choreographed the deception for invasion of Iraq for vacuous GW Bush, has told us smugly THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. As the war is playing out in Iraq, he unfortunately may be right.

Speaker Pelosi's recent bill might signal the beginning of the end of four years of hopeless tactics that involved soldiers breaking down doors, riding to death in Humvees and being picked off on foot patrols; but, it does not end the self defeating drive for permanent US bases in Iraq by certain interest groups. That is another battle she is yet to confront. Even her stalwart supporter Representative Murtha who pushes for an ambiguous redeployment option, has an open ended policy. At this time he has not told us redeployed to where... or why he specifically wants US troops in the region. Wish he would, because that would at least define our interests in the area. Two perceived interests that pop into my mind are oil and Israel, neither of which is worth one drop of American blood. At 62USD a barrel, you can buy oil anywhere and as much as you want. As far as Israel, if with its nuc bomb and all the American military and economic aid it receives, it cannot fend for itself, it does not deserve to be independent. The talk about having Iraqis standing on their own is similarly long over due for the Israelis. According to a recent world wide poll, the US follows Israel as the most contemptible nation. US support of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon has cost the US more than Condoleezza is willing to admit openly – it was a pure disaster. US cluster bombs and all that US hot air at the UN in support of Israel seriously damaged US stature. Israeli POWs still remain in captivity which was the pretext for the bombing; a bombing that also failed to silence the Hetzbollah rockets flying into Israel.

Examination of the 14 Democrats who voted against Pelosi's bill is revealing. Not one appears to be under the control of the Israel lobby. Can it, therefore, be assumed that the Lobby green lighted the bill to pass? If so, why? The Israeli Lobby with Senator Lieberman as its standard bearer clearly wants the war to continue. Perle's THERE IS NO TURNING BACK might mean a plan to keep US troops stationed there indefinitely, and that is certainly an Israel fallback position. We know Pelosi rushed back from a recent AIPAC convention and used her office to torpedo Senator Webb's no invasion of Iran rider on the war appropriation Senate bill. Was there a trade off to kill the Iran no invasion for the Lobby's support of the Pelosi war appropriation bill, which may or may not go anywhere? My sense is yes. Pelosi was desperate for victory – fleeting as it may turn out to be. With the Senate approval of the war appropriation bill, she apparently used tactics that brought near term success. The ball is in Bush's court; to veto or not to veto the bill.

Republicans in the Senate had enough votes to filibuster the bill but did not. This means Bush was intentionally made to carry the ball with the veto – money for wars is needed in May, so Bush has to move quickly to avoid being end played and losing timely appropriations. Republicans are trying to shift the guilt of losing the war to the Democrats, but the guilt remains with the dopes that started the misadventure. And that is mainly Bush and his Republican crazies. What is going on as far as a possible war with Iran? Democrats better keep their eye on that one; there are two aircraft carriers confined in the Persian Gulf with limited maneuverability which makes them sitting ducks. Are the Navy planners as dumb as the Army planners?

Except for a Congressman like Kucinich who refused on principle to vote money to extend the war, others, both Democrats and Republicans, wanted mindlessly to support the Commander and Chief President, who like his military commanders, has not got one thing right on the invasion of Iraq since he started the bloody fiasco. There are some who want to hang in until victory is achieved in the civil war. Does that mean we kill Sunnis or Shiites? Less obvious reasons may be that certain congressmen did not get their pound of pork hooked to the bill; or, some defense contracts linked to the Iraq war spending in their districts have to be protected; or, the vote is compensation for campaign contributions spread by those companies that have over 70,000 contract employees in Iraq. Recently, the Office of the Budget inspector general declared after his most recent of 15 trips to Iraq, that corruption is the second greatest threat to stability in Iraq after the insurgency. War profiteering and military weapons production are the big time predatory capitalism old IKE warned us about in his farewell presidential address.

The US has built 14 fortified bases in Iraq – most with amenities and airfields. Some of these, along with the intended largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad, would serve as the nucleus of the new US Middle Eastern Empire – that would be of course, over the dead bodies of most Iraqi and Jihadists. It is as if 9/11 never happened. This is an attack based on US occupation of Islamic lands. Despite having the knowledge learned by the French and English, an Empire based on extraction of national resources at bayonet point is just not cost effective. Halliburton, bloated by war profiteering, is getting ahead of the game and setting up its headquarters in Dubai to be nearer the action and further away from US corporate regulations. If this plan of permanent US bases proceeds, expect endless terror against the US; it will provide more fuel to recruit suicide bombers. The Jihadists have established a permanent terrorist platzdarm under GW Bush's nose in Pakistan already so they do not need one in Iraq. If the US pulls out of Iraq, the shelf life of al-Qaeda would be short, as it represents a small part of the insurgency and the Iraqis want their country back.

Along with the plans for permanent bases in Iraq, another fine example of Bush's retreating forward is his surge policy of sending more US troops to Iraq. As long as Bush concentrates on killing Sunnis, the Shiites will try to behave; fewer drilled Sunni bodies are showing up at the Baghdad morgues, but Shiites are dying like flies inside and outside Baghdad, so this improved status may soon evaporate. Meanwhile the US is losing 2-3 men a day to insurgent attacks – there are more than a 100 attacks on US forces a day. Not even the most warped neocon is talking about US dying for democracy in Iraq anymore; the fact that the Sunni deputy Premier was almost killed a few days ago is sobering. Secretary General of the UN was greeted with a volley of insurgent rockets while he visited the Green Zone.

There is no question it is in the US interest to get out of Iraq soonest. Permanent US bases means the US remains and continues to destabilize the region. Ironically, in the end, the invasion has caused more misery and chaos than under Saddam and much less security with Iraq refugees streaming out at about 500 a day; over 2 million have left since the invasion. They are becoming a major burden all over the region. Those Iraqi elements that played ball with the US are marked for death and are pleading to get out. Unlike the gang the US left behind in Vietnam that spent a year in re-indoctrination camps, the stay behinds in Iraq will be dispatched to Allah quickly and brutally. Richard Perle told us that a large boulevard in Baghdad will be named after GW Bush by a grateful Iraqi people... yah wanna to bet? Let us hope Perle is wrong as usual on THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. Colonel Robert E Bartos USA RET
Photograph: Etching Tu que no puedes by Francisco de Goya