Reduction of US Forces & Other Myths in GWB’s Iraq

GW Bush and frenetic neocons never quite get it right. They start wars, but cannot win them; they bring us only permanent wars. A desperate political tactic devised by V. I. Lenin during the Russian Communist Revolution was ONE STEP BACKWARD, TWO STEPS FORWARD – Bush and his pals with their recent reduction in force proposals in Iraq gave us TWO STEPS BACKWARD AND ONE STEP FORWARD. According to reliable sources, many neocons, e.g. Norman Podhoretz, descend from an old émigré nucleus of Leon Trotskyist Russians chased out of Russia by Stalin who had Trotsky brutally killed in Mexico with an ice ax to his head.

Apart from the deadly competition over Communist leadership in Russia, Comrade Stalin and Comrade Trotsky fought it out ideologically over the concepts of Stalin's REVOLUTION IN ONE COUNTRY vs. Trotsky's INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTION IN MANY COUNTRIES. Trotsky was beaten badly, but his neocon progeny in the US still carry on his spirit, now morphed into an international conversion of the world by the sword to democracy. This imperative is as equally idiotic as Trotsky's fulminations, but GW Bush has given it a good ride as he pointlessly plunged the US into war in Iraq and frantically hectors the world on delusional revolutionary democracy. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, in his latest book undermines Bush's sanctimonious rhetoric even more by revealing the Iraq war was all about oil. FYI, President Bush awarded Greenspan the Medal of Freedom.

The other concept that was imbedded in Trotskyism is permanent revolution. This is now rolled out by neocons as permanent war on terror – problem with this is that neocons define a terrorist as anyone who shoots or kills an Israeli; from an Israeli standpoint that definition is okay with me, but for the US to permit any foreign country to define its enemies is a tragically foolish mistake.

When Bush finished his self serving Ode to Petraeus speech, about the only thing that rang true was the ending: GOOD NIGHT AND GOD BLESS AMERICA. Like the old Marxist/Leninist agitation and propaganda techniques used to develop their Soviet diatribes, Bush started his speech establishing and repeating false premises that Iraq is an ally – that is news to at least 70% of Iraqis and most Americans. Since when do allies kill Americans at the rate of two to three a day? Sure the Kurds adore Americans, but their choice is that or to be skinned alive by Turks, Sunnis and Shiites. Now with the oil exploitation deal in Kurd lands signed by Bush's and Halliburton Texas stooge Hunt, expect the US to shift basing and monetary inducements to flow from the Iraqi Shiite central government to the Kurds. At this disastrous stage of the Iraq war, Bush is prepared to fall back, and to accept hegemony just over the Kurds as consolation prize; a prize he had cinched at the beginning of the war, but now may have to fight permanently to keep it, as the Sunnis and Shiites gain strength along with Turks who are now more influenced by the Islamists who recently were elected to the majority in their government. Under any circumstances, US petrol development in Kurd lands will be complicated and contested by forces outside the region. And by the way, most permanent bases built by Bush in Iraq are not in Kurd lands. Aw shucks; fouled up... again?

Still clutching his false premises to his heart, Bush preached an enduring relationship with Iraq. Uncertain how to categorize this; as pie in the sky, wishful thinking or a neocon opium pipe dream. Realistically, if GW Bush can get out of Sunni and Shiite Iraq with their promise not return the mosaic image of his father to the Rashid Baghdad Hotel floor for people to walk over, and not to have one also installed of himself, he will be fortunate. Apart from finding a functioning central government, the President should get rid of the Shariya based Iraqi constitution first, before he engages and weds the US to Iraq in a so called enduring relationship, whatever that means. With the current anti-American and bloody internal situation, GWB could not even arrange an Iraqi shotgun wedding with the US, even if he should openly confess to screwing Iraq.

Like many Americans who watched Bush's Surge speech, I flipped the TV channels afterwards, curious to gauge the pundit and politically correct crowd's gush. A vast majority were either neutral or disappointed over Bush's performance. My favorite interview was on CNN between Anderson Cooper and the veteran Australian journalist Michael Ware who reports from Baghdad. Cooper is a prissy, prim, clean cut, immaculate and careful man who always looks like he stepped out of a band box even in the middle of sandstorm. Ware is just the opposite: sometimes with a shirt tail out, he always looks like he was swept off a bar room floor, and usually has a one day growth of stubble; if you look closely you may find flys buzzing around his sweaty head. With a nose that is spread to the side of his face and that nasal Australian Outback Crocodile Dundee accent, he is by far the most gifted and effective English speaking reporter on the scene in Iraq. He responded to Cooper's earnestly polite question on Bush's speech with a sneer and read from prepared notes that debunked every major point in Bush's speech based on his own on site observations and sources; it was a stark, grim reply, and a refreshing performance. No effort was made to please TV sponsors or conform to political attitudes at CNN. Cooper thanked him, probably afraid to ask another question – it was a rare moment – if Petraeus talked to this Australian regularly, the General might keep more of his troops alive. I dare US Congress to call Ware as an open hearing witness. Now that would be SHOCK AND AWE in the Congressional committee rooms.

Bush took one wobbly step forward by promising speciously to reduce troops over the year to the pre-surge level of 130,000. He also took two firm steps backward. One promised an open ended war and a protracted US occupation in Iraq, and the other promised de facto to continue to arm both Shiites and Sunnis, so they can kill each other easily in the Iraq Civil War. My opinion, albeit a minority one, is the Petraeus/Crocker episode is not over before Congress. More Pentagon reports are coming out undermining Petraeus' rosy report. There are two Naval Admirals: one commands CENTCOM and is Petraeus' boss and another who will head the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have world wide military policy responsibilities. These officers are yet to give their opinions publicly. Both of these men, by nature of their service branch, take their ground force advice from Marines, who like some Army generals, are at odds with Petraeus. As each day passes, SecDef Gates appears more befuddled as he conditionally hints, bobs and weaves over more and faster troops cuts than Bush/Petraeus accept. Both admirals, each having broad regional security responsibilities well beyond those of Petraeus, understand the war in Afghanistan is going badly. With a real threat of Jihad loose nucs, there is an overwhelming priority to focus more forces on that theater of operations before Pakistan's Musharraf crumbles. Those US forces most likely have to come out of Iraq garrisons. Colonel Robert E Bartos USA RET