30.11.05
Liberating the Universe
America wants to liberate space according to former Canadian Defence Minister. He states,
I'll try to follow up on this story. Weaponizing space is perhaps one of the scariest things for the next generation. Liberating space from extraterestrials is altogether another matter we'll leave up to Christian Fundamentalists and their Zionist masters. Since they've done so profoundly well with the terrestrial project in Iraq, I'm sure they'd have no trouble with the rest of the Universe. Though I'm secretly hoping the Aliens come to save us from ourselves.
|
"I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something."
Hellyer revealed, "The secrecy involved in all matters pertaining to the Roswell incident was unparalled. The classification was, from the outset, above top secret, so the vast majority of U.S. officials and politicians, let alone a mere allied minister of defence, were never in-the-loop."
Hellyer warned, "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. He stated, "The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."
I'll try to follow up on this story. Weaponizing space is perhaps one of the scariest things for the next generation. Liberating space from extraterestrials is altogether another matter we'll leave up to Christian Fundamentalists and their Zionist masters. Since they've done so profoundly well with the terrestrial project in Iraq, I'm sure they'd have no trouble with the rest of the Universe. Though I'm secretly hoping the Aliens come to save us from ourselves.
23.11.05
Lord Goldsmith: You can't handle the truth!
Coming close to doing something possibly similar to what Saddam would have done...and did, most literally.
Bomb the media that doesn't say what you want to hear! Rub out the journalists that don't follow the script...
But lets not forget Tariq Ayoub being killed in Baghdad by a US air striike, which, btw, seems to be a precociously intentional act. So, in effect, it was done on a smaller scale. Taking out the headquarters of Al Jazeera in Qatar verges upon insanity in ways we haven't seen in the entire lifespan of the unfolding Iraqi tragedies.
And so it only begs the question to be answered truthfully; were the bombings of the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad and Afghanistan deliberate?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
And I can't help but ask the simplest of questions...
If the story has no merit, why would the Brittish government threaten newspapers with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?
Or better yet...
Why is Blair (via Lord Goldsmith) saving Bush&Co's face after being shit upon so royally?
Too bad truth has no currency in the current conflict.
|
Bomb the media that doesn't say what you want to hear! Rub out the journalists that don't follow the script...
But lets not forget Tariq Ayoub being killed in Baghdad by a US air striike, which, btw, seems to be a precociously intentional act. So, in effect, it was done on a smaller scale. Taking out the headquarters of Al Jazeera in Qatar verges upon insanity in ways we haven't seen in the entire lifespan of the unfolding Iraqi tragedies.
And so it only begs the question to be answered truthfully; were the bombings of the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad and Afghanistan deliberate?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
Britain has warned media organizations they are breaking the law if they publish details of a leaked document said to show U.S. President George W. Bush wanted to bomb Arabic television station Al Jazeera.
The government's top lawyer warned editors in a note after the Daily Mirror newspaper reported on Tuesday that a secret British government memo said British Prime Minister Tony Blair had talked Bush out of bombing the broadcaster in April last year.
And I can't help but ask the simplest of questions...
If the story has no merit, why would the Brittish government threaten newspapers with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?
Or better yet...
Why is Blair (via Lord Goldsmith) saving Bush&Co's face after being shit upon so royally?
Too bad truth has no currency in the current conflict.
22.11.05
Dept of WTF: Dick the dangerous illusionist allows others to entertain "illusions"
"You can express your opinion now that we've done gone and destroyed the place and turned it over to the jihadis." -Shrub's essence
After several years of arrogance, blood, and 220 billion dollars and counting, we've been given permission by Bush and Dick to criticize their lunacy. One thing i've noticed when examining the veep's words is that most terms he used like "corrupt and shameless" and "dangerous illusion" are terms that I and many others could easily deploy upon him in a variety of ways.
This clearly shows a strategy change on the part of the chicken-hawk ok corral cabal of crazies. (In the words of Vietnam Veteran John Murtha: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done. I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he [Bush] criticized Democrats for criticizing them.")
Mr Cheney said calls for a quick withdrawal were built on a "dangerous illusion" that it would satisfy the US's jihadist enemies.
Yo Dick! I'm afraid you already satisfied the jihadis by invading Iraq to begin with...and becoming a veritable al-qaeda recruitment officer.
So, brilliant job you've done. Really. And nice back-pedal, but make it more believable next time.
The destruction of Iraq was purely deliberate and orchestrated to steal the oil of Iraqis amid the chaos and to gain a foothold in the region to stage further attacks (Iran & Syria). Instead, all it has done is sow hatred and misery. American "foreign policy" is a complete and utter failure. In the tiniest nutshell...this is how many Iraqis are feeling at the moment.
See...Iraq's Oil: The Spoils of War, by Philip Thornton in the London Independent
Yes...caught in an old colonial trap indeed. Used and abused. An arena for other peoples' wars is what I envision it becoming. Much like Lebanon on a grander scale...
And just now we have been afforded the right to point out the fallacies? Oh, splendid... golly gee thanks. I recall the likes of Delay and Cheney equating people against the war with terrorists as recent as the last few months. Now Delay & Libby have been indicted, Frist will be soon (if he hasn't been already), and Cheney's on deck with Rove.
The more attention drawn towards the Plame affair, the better. The spin might not even matter. Now that the ranks of the anti-war have been thickening, the enemies are many more for this administration (even Republicans are outraged)...so undergoing some damage control is the order of the day.
Net result: The WH's recent strategy of attacking detractors has backfired (see Schmidt the Retard) and they've been forced back on the defensive. And I'm still laughing and crying. Status quo is sOOOO 2003. At least some things have changed, though.
|
After several years of arrogance, blood, and 220 billion dollars and counting, we've been given permission by Bush and Dick to criticize their lunacy. One thing i've noticed when examining the veep's words is that most terms he used like "corrupt and shameless" and "dangerous illusion" are terms that I and many others could easily deploy upon him in a variety of ways.
This clearly shows a strategy change on the part of the chicken-hawk ok corral cabal of crazies. (In the words of Vietnam Veteran John Murtha: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done. I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he [Bush] criticized Democrats for criticizing them.")
Mr Cheney said calls for a quick withdrawal were built on a "dangerous illusion" that it would satisfy the US's jihadist enemies.
Yo Dick! I'm afraid you already satisfied the jihadis by invading Iraq to begin with...and becoming a veritable al-qaeda recruitment officer.
So, brilliant job you've done. Really. And nice back-pedal, but make it more believable next time.
The destruction of Iraq was purely deliberate and orchestrated to steal the oil of Iraqis amid the chaos and to gain a foothold in the region to stage further attacks (Iran & Syria). Instead, all it has done is sow hatred and misery. American "foreign policy" is a complete and utter failure. In the tiniest nutshell...this is how many Iraqis are feeling at the moment.
See...Iraq's Oil: The Spoils of War, by Philip Thornton in the London Independent
Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.
Yes...caught in an old colonial trap indeed. Used and abused. An arena for other peoples' wars is what I envision it becoming. Much like Lebanon on a grander scale...
And just now we have been afforded the right to point out the fallacies? Oh, splendid... golly gee thanks. I recall the likes of Delay and Cheney equating people against the war with terrorists as recent as the last few months. Now Delay & Libby have been indicted, Frist will be soon (if he hasn't been already), and Cheney's on deck with Rove.
The more attention drawn towards the Plame affair, the better. The spin might not even matter. Now that the ranks of the anti-war have been thickening, the enemies are many more for this administration (even Republicans are outraged)...so undergoing some damage control is the order of the day.
Net result: The WH's recent strategy of attacking detractors has backfired (see Schmidt the Retard) and they've been forced back on the defensive. And I'm still laughing and crying. Status quo is sOOOO 2003. At least some things have changed, though.
21.11.05
The good professor's magnificent insolence
Taken from The Angry Arab News Service
Monday, November 14, 2005
Ahmad Chalabi's Advise on Syria. Ahmad Chalabi has been making the rounds in DC. He met with Rumsfeld and Rice. Mostly, he was asked for his opinions of Syria. Ahmad Chalabi gave the most sober and rational analysis of Syrian politics. He advocated a US invasion of Syria because he believes that Syrian WMDs are dangerous to world stability. He said that Judith Millers will be writing about Syrian WMDs soon once she finds a newspaper to write for. But he assured US officials that the Syrians would not resist US occupation forces, and that they would in fact welcome them with "sweets and flowers" (he even identified the sweet: the Syrian cookie known as Barazi', a sesame cookie). Only a small number of US troops would be needed for the job, he insisted, and Bush would be able to give a "mission accomplished" speech within weeks after the start of the invasion. When asked about the Washington, DC-based Syrian opposition groups, he assured them that they would be hugely popular in Syria, and that the secular liberal and pro-American Syrians would run the place, and that religion and clerics would disappear from Syrian life. Chalabi went even further: he said that Syria would emerge as a democratic and liberal model, and that Arabs would rush to emulate it, and that the invasion would produce a domino effect in the region. He dismissed reports that a resistance movement would emerge under an American invasion of Syria. Having listened to his evaluation of Syrian politics, US officials felt very optimistic.
|
Monday, November 14, 2005
Ahmad Chalabi's Advise on Syria. Ahmad Chalabi has been making the rounds in DC. He met with Rumsfeld and Rice. Mostly, he was asked for his opinions of Syria. Ahmad Chalabi gave the most sober and rational analysis of Syrian politics. He advocated a US invasion of Syria because he believes that Syrian WMDs are dangerous to world stability. He said that Judith Millers will be writing about Syrian WMDs soon once she finds a newspaper to write for. But he assured US officials that the Syrians would not resist US occupation forces, and that they would in fact welcome them with "sweets and flowers" (he even identified the sweet: the Syrian cookie known as Barazi', a sesame cookie). Only a small number of US troops would be needed for the job, he insisted, and Bush would be able to give a "mission accomplished" speech within weeks after the start of the invasion. When asked about the Washington, DC-based Syrian opposition groups, he assured them that they would be hugely popular in Syria, and that the secular liberal and pro-American Syrians would run the place, and that religion and clerics would disappear from Syrian life. Chalabi went even further: he said that Syria would emerge as a democratic and liberal model, and that Arabs would rush to emulate it, and that the invasion would produce a domino effect in the region. He dismissed reports that a resistance movement would emerge under an American invasion of Syria. Having listened to his evaluation of Syrian politics, US officials felt very optimistic.
15.11.05
the slow growing rumble...
...can be heard in the background... even in good ol' knoxville, tennessee.
The slow growing rumble has many a sound...
The slow growing rumble can force you downtown
to be indicted and tried for the casus belli of war crime(s)
The slow growing rumble can make the shallow lies used to cover up the deep lies
run away in relevency like waning of high tide.
The slow growing rumble says its high time for the facade of deciet to crumble
beneath the twisting and reaping tendrils of popular justice's conundrum.
Once this same popular opinion was wishing the war upon the world because it's existence was threatened by its very own government...with nuclear weapons that didn't exist. Imagine a government threatening its own
The hollow confidence captured by that captivated audience marched the world to war too quickly when the democrats in congress backed the (vice) president's malfeasance.
But can the slow growing rumble make the deck of cards tumble?
If it does, I will be humbled to have taken part in...
the slow growing rumble.
(((i did this too quickly, but i wanna go ahead and put it up)))
out,
liminator
|
The slow growing rumble has many a sound...
The slow growing rumble can force you downtown
to be indicted and tried for the casus belli of war crime(s)
The slow growing rumble can make the shallow lies used to cover up the deep lies
run away in relevency like waning of high tide.
The slow growing rumble says its high time for the facade of deciet to crumble
beneath the twisting and reaping tendrils of popular justice's conundrum.
Once this same popular opinion was wishing the war upon the world because it's existence was threatened by its very own government...with nuclear weapons that didn't exist. Imagine a government threatening its own
The hollow confidence captured by that captivated audience marched the world to war too quickly when the democrats in congress backed the (vice) president's malfeasance.
But can the slow growing rumble make the deck of cards tumble?
If it does, I will be humbled to have taken part in...
the slow growing rumble.
(((i did this too quickly, but i wanna go ahead and put it up)))
out,
liminator
12.11.05
Speeches for Zionism: Chalabi speaks at the American Enterprise Institute
Arriana Huffington once linked me from her blog...albeit incorrectly (because the link was dead), she did include me on a short list of Iraqi bloggers to check out. I appreciated the sentiment and have recognized her increased astuteness regarding Iraq and Middle Eastern politics by dropping one of her latest articles here:
Chalabi is the "missing link" in several of the scandals currently brewing. I'd say he's perhaps the "missing link" in the grand scheme of evolution as well. Not to say Homo Erectus was less civilized than him.
Professor Cole also wrote something related.
|
Ahmad Does D.C.: An Alternative Chalabi Itinerary
by Arianna Huffington
Fresh off this past weekend’s return trip to Tehran, neocon darling Ahmad Chalabi hits Washington today -- his first visit to the nation’s capital in over two years.
He’s got a very busy schedule planned, including meetings with Condi Rice, Treasury Secretary John Snow, and national security advisor Stephen Hadley.
There is also talk of a possible private meeting with his longtime champion, Dick Cheney.
No word on where the Cheney/Chalabi reunion might take place. Perhaps at one of the Veep’s undisclosed locations. Or maybe the St. Regis. I hear they have a nice breakfast.
According to administration sources, Chalabi won’t be meeting with President Bush. Not because he deliberately and repeatedly provided the U.S. government with false intel, convinced Cheney our troops would be greeted as liberators, tried to sabotage the UN’s efforts to put an interim government in place, and was accused by the Bush administration of spying for Iran. No, all that has apparently been forgiven. Bush just doesn’t want to appear to be playing favorites by meeting with any Iraqi candidates until the December 15 election is over. I guess the meetings with Bush’s cabinet members -- and the $340,000 a month the White House gave to Chalabi in the lead up to the war -- is endorsement enough.
But Chalabi’s trip won’t just consist of cozy tête-à-têtes with administration big-shots. He’ll also deliver a speech to the American Enterprise Institute -- an organization, according to its mission statement “dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom”. No, the topic of his talk isn’t “The Rebirth of Irony”. It’s “An Insider’s View: Democratic Politics at Work in Iraq”. On second thought, maybe it is on the rebirth of irony after all. Among the questions Chalabi will be addressing: “Will the constitution provide the foundation for a democratic system that can be a model for the Middle East?” According to Matthew Yglesias: “That’s easy. The answer is no.”
So it looks like Chalabi is pretty booked up. But, with all due respect, I’d like to suggest some additions to Mr. Chalabi’s D.C. itinerary.
1. FBI Headquarters. Chalabi is currently under investigation, suspected of telling the Iranian government that America had broken the code it used for secret communications -- an offense the administration said could “get people killed”. When this information came to light 17 months ago, Condi Rice promised a criminal investigation of the charges. But close to a year and a half later, the FBI has still not questioned Chalabi. Now seems like a perfect time. Condi can walk him over to the Hoover Building after their meeting and make all the necessary introductions.
2. United States Congress. I’m sure the Senate intelligence committee (or at least its Democratic members) would like to speak to Chalabi as part of the Phase II investigation into the Bush administration’s use of false and misleading intelligence to help sell the war -- false and misleading intelligence that Chalabi, after all, played a central role in supplying. I’d love to see Dick Durbin grill Chalabi under oath about his relationship with the White House Iraq Group, his relationship with Curveball, and his predictions of a problem-free occupation. Members of the House, including John Conyers, are also very interested in talking to him. It might be very useful for the Deputy Prime Minister (and wanna-be PM) to get “An Insider’s View of Democratic Politics at Work in America”.
3. New York Times Washington Bureau. I’m sure that Bill Keller and Jill Abramson would fly to down for the chance to talk to Chalabi about his relationship with Judy Miller and find out exactly how he managed to convince her to write utterly bogus front page stories like the one about the engineer who swore he had personally seen 20 different WMD sites (Miller’s story on the engineer, whom Miller deemed “reliable” and “credible”, came just three days after he had failed a CIA lie detector test). (Note to Chalabi: don’t be surprised it Pinch Sulzberger declines to fly down for the meeting).
4. Arlington National Cemetery. And finally, how about a quick meet and greet with the families of the over 17,000 U.S. soldiers killed or wounded in a war Mr. Chalabi was central in selling to our leaders? Maybe he can reminisce about the Pentagon meeting held a week after 9/11 during which he made the case for taking on Iraq. He can also explain what he meant in 2004 when he shrugged off charges he had deliberately trumped up claims about Saddam’s WMD by saying, “We are heroes in error”. He can then lead a discussion about who are the bigger heroes, Chalabi or the 2,057 American soldiers who have died in Iraq.
So what do you say, Ahmad? You up for a little detour from your planned comeback tour? I’ve got a feeling it would prove very educational -- if not for you, then certainly for the American public.
Chalabi is the "missing link" in several of the scandals currently brewing. I'd say he's perhaps the "missing link" in the grand scheme of evolution as well. Not to say Homo Erectus was less civilized than him.
Professor Cole also wrote something related.
10.11.05
SMOKING CLOUD, MUSHROOM GUN
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking gun, mushroom cloud Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud
Office of "Special" Plans
Let's cast some intensified light upon Feith and his Libbified ilk.
Then there are those chemical weapons occupation soldiers used on Iraqis. Ah yes! I think they finally found the WMD! They were using them on Fallujans. White phosphorous! Essentially, NAPALM. Well, at least we know the truth now. TOO BAD THE TRUTH CAN'T BRING SECURITY OR ESSENTIAL SERVICES TO IRAQIS IN NEED.
And those secret gulags in Eastern Europe...aint that a thang?
more soon...
|
Then there are those chemical weapons occupation soldiers used on Iraqis. Ah yes! I think they finally found the WMD! They were using them on Fallujans. White phosphorous! Essentially, NAPALM. Well, at least we know the truth now. TOO BAD THE TRUTH CAN'T BRING SECURITY OR ESSENTIAL SERVICES TO IRAQIS IN NEED.
And those secret gulags in Eastern Europe...aint that a thang?
more soon...
5.11.05
Rosa Parks Rest in Peace
While Iraqis struggle under one of the ultimate violations of basic human rights--an occupation--Rosa Parks has died. She was the spark that ignited a sweeping civil rights movement in America. She was and still is a symbol of everything that makes America good. Unfortunately, a few bad apples high up the food chain in Washington are hijacking the entire country into policies that make peace-loving people like Rosa Parks cringe and sigh in disbelief and disgust.
Thank you for everything Mrs. Parks. Your spirit moves mountains.
|
Thank you for everything Mrs. Parks. Your spirit moves mountains.
4.11.05
Bush free fall
|3.11.05
The architects of defeat must be held responsible.
The Blame Game
By Stephen M. Walt
Foreign Policy: November/December 2005
Who will be blamed for Iraq? It’s easy for politicians to point fingers at each other. But ultimately, the buck stops at the Oval Office.
The United States’ involvement in Iraq just keeps getting messier every day. The insurgency is as potent as ever, and U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians are dying at a higher rate than they were a year ago. Efforts to reconcile Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions have failed, and progress on building competent security forces has been painfully slow. A series of supposedly decisive “turning points” have come and gone—including the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004, national elections in January 2005, and the drafting of a new constitution in August 2005—but the country is no closer to stability. Public support for the war is plummeting in the United States, and current U.S. troop levels cannot be sustained without breaking the Army, the Reserves, and the National Guard. Once U.S. forces withdraw, a full-blown civil war is likely. Although our armed forces have fought with dedication and courage, this war will ultimately cost us more than $1 trillion, not to mention thousands of lives. And what will the United States have achieved? Remarkably, we will probably leave Iraq in even worse shape than it was under Saddam Hussein.
“Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” Those famous words penned long ago have a special resonance today. If the United States loses the war in Iraq, there will inevitably be a bitter debate over who is responsible. With prospects for victory fading, the people who led us into this bastard conflict are already devising various rationales to explain the failure and deny their paternity. As the debate over “who’s losing Iraq” heats up, the American people should not be hoodwinked by these after-the-fact alibis. The architects of defeat must be held responsible.
Moderates who backed the war, including a number of prominent Democrats, now argue that they did so only because they were misled by the cia’s faulty intelligence and deliberately deceived by President George W. Bush’s administration. This line of reasoning was Sen. John Kerry’s defense during the 2004 presidential campaign. Similar explanations have been offered by other pro-war Democrats and repentant pundits such as the Brookings Institution’s Kenneth Pollack, whose prewar book The Threatening Storm made the moderates’ case for war. The problem with this alibi, however, is that there was already plenty of evidence that cast doubt on the administration’s case, information that was publicly available before the fighting started. Invading Iraq was not their idea, but the moderates who went along deserve no credit for being so gullible.
Pro-war hawks offer a different set of excuses. Some assert that going to war was the right idea, but the operation was bungled by incompetent leadership in the Pentagon. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, wants Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, yet the pundit simultaneously claims that the debacle in Iraq vindicates his earlier call for vast increases in U.S. defense spending. In this view, we are losing because we don’t have a big enough army to run an empire and because civilians at the top were never serious about winning.
This excuse suffers from two glaring weaknesses. First, the war may not have been winnable no matter what we did, because Iraq was a deeply divided society from the onset, and occupying powers almost always face fierce resistance. That the occupation was badly executed is indisputable, but it is by no means clear that any occupation would have succeeded. Second, if hawks such as Kristol thought we needed a bigger military to perform a global imperial role, they should have withheld their support until adequate forces were available. Instead, they did everything they could to get us into the regime-changing business as quickly as possible.
For their part, Secretary Rumsfeld and other administration officials blame our problems on Baathist “dead-enders” and radical jihadis, aided and abetted by Syria and Iran. It’s not the Bush administration’s fault we’re losing, we are told; it’s our enemies’ fault. That is no defense at all, of course, because it merely reminds us that the Bush team failed to anticipate what would happen once Saddam was gone and we “owned” Iraq. And given that the Bush administration has repeatedly threatened Syria and Iran with regime change, it is hardly surprising that these regimes are now happy to see us bogged down in Baghdad. U.S. leaders should have considered these possibilities before they went to war, and their failure to do so is hardly a reason to excuse them now.
The most scurrilous alibi, however, blames our difficulties on eroding public support at home. Grieving antiwar mother Cindy Sheehan gets pilloried by right-wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and President Bush declares that Americans who favor withdrawing “are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States.” Similarly, neoconservative pundit Max Boot recently maintained that Iraqi democracy would survive its birth pangs only “if we don’t cut and run prematurely.” So, we are told, “staying the course” will work, unless we are forced to pull out by weak-willed critics back home.
This argument is a clever bit of political jujitsu, because it in effect blames any future defeat on the people who have long contended that the war was unnecessary and unwise. But it is also a bogus excuse. In a democracy, a commander in chief who wants to go to war is responsible for building and maintaining public support for sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. President Bush sold the war brilliantly before the fighting started, but his sales pitch could not survive the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the embarrassing revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib, the bungled occupation, the mounting list of dead and wounded, and the rising economic toll. Most of all, this rationale highlights the conspicuous lack of a plausible theory of victory now. We are not losing because our troops lack public support. The war lacks support because we are losing.
If our Iraq adventure ends badly, there will be ample blame to go around. But the buck should stop, as President Harry Truman famously said, in the Oval Office. President Bush was quick to claim credit when things were going well, and he cannot escape blame when things turn ugly. This is President Bush’s war, and America’s failure will be his legacy.
Stephen M. Walt is academic dean at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. His latest book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy (New York: Norton, 2005).
|
By Stephen M. Walt
Foreign Policy: November/December 2005
Who will be blamed for Iraq? It’s easy for politicians to point fingers at each other. But ultimately, the buck stops at the Oval Office.
The United States’ involvement in Iraq just keeps getting messier every day. The insurgency is as potent as ever, and U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians are dying at a higher rate than they were a year ago. Efforts to reconcile Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions have failed, and progress on building competent security forces has been painfully slow. A series of supposedly decisive “turning points” have come and gone—including the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004, national elections in January 2005, and the drafting of a new constitution in August 2005—but the country is no closer to stability. Public support for the war is plummeting in the United States, and current U.S. troop levels cannot be sustained without breaking the Army, the Reserves, and the National Guard. Once U.S. forces withdraw, a full-blown civil war is likely. Although our armed forces have fought with dedication and courage, this war will ultimately cost us more than $1 trillion, not to mention thousands of lives. And what will the United States have achieved? Remarkably, we will probably leave Iraq in even worse shape than it was under Saddam Hussein.
“Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” Those famous words penned long ago have a special resonance today. If the United States loses the war in Iraq, there will inevitably be a bitter debate over who is responsible. With prospects for victory fading, the people who led us into this bastard conflict are already devising various rationales to explain the failure and deny their paternity. As the debate over “who’s losing Iraq” heats up, the American people should not be hoodwinked by these after-the-fact alibis. The architects of defeat must be held responsible.
Moderates who backed the war, including a number of prominent Democrats, now argue that they did so only because they were misled by the cia’s faulty intelligence and deliberately deceived by President George W. Bush’s administration. This line of reasoning was Sen. John Kerry’s defense during the 2004 presidential campaign. Similar explanations have been offered by other pro-war Democrats and repentant pundits such as the Brookings Institution’s Kenneth Pollack, whose prewar book The Threatening Storm made the moderates’ case for war. The problem with this alibi, however, is that there was already plenty of evidence that cast doubt on the administration’s case, information that was publicly available before the fighting started. Invading Iraq was not their idea, but the moderates who went along deserve no credit for being so gullible.
Pro-war hawks offer a different set of excuses. Some assert that going to war was the right idea, but the operation was bungled by incompetent leadership in the Pentagon. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, wants Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, yet the pundit simultaneously claims that the debacle in Iraq vindicates his earlier call for vast increases in U.S. defense spending. In this view, we are losing because we don’t have a big enough army to run an empire and because civilians at the top were never serious about winning.
This excuse suffers from two glaring weaknesses. First, the war may not have been winnable no matter what we did, because Iraq was a deeply divided society from the onset, and occupying powers almost always face fierce resistance. That the occupation was badly executed is indisputable, but it is by no means clear that any occupation would have succeeded. Second, if hawks such as Kristol thought we needed a bigger military to perform a global imperial role, they should have withheld their support until adequate forces were available. Instead, they did everything they could to get us into the regime-changing business as quickly as possible.
For their part, Secretary Rumsfeld and other administration officials blame our problems on Baathist “dead-enders” and radical jihadis, aided and abetted by Syria and Iran. It’s not the Bush administration’s fault we’re losing, we are told; it’s our enemies’ fault. That is no defense at all, of course, because it merely reminds us that the Bush team failed to anticipate what would happen once Saddam was gone and we “owned” Iraq. And given that the Bush administration has repeatedly threatened Syria and Iran with regime change, it is hardly surprising that these regimes are now happy to see us bogged down in Baghdad. U.S. leaders should have considered these possibilities before they went to war, and their failure to do so is hardly a reason to excuse them now.
The most scurrilous alibi, however, blames our difficulties on eroding public support at home. Grieving antiwar mother Cindy Sheehan gets pilloried by right-wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and President Bush declares that Americans who favor withdrawing “are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States.” Similarly, neoconservative pundit Max Boot recently maintained that Iraqi democracy would survive its birth pangs only “if we don’t cut and run prematurely.” So, we are told, “staying the course” will work, unless we are forced to pull out by weak-willed critics back home.
This argument is a clever bit of political jujitsu, because it in effect blames any future defeat on the people who have long contended that the war was unnecessary and unwise. But it is also a bogus excuse. In a democracy, a commander in chief who wants to go to war is responsible for building and maintaining public support for sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. President Bush sold the war brilliantly before the fighting started, but his sales pitch could not survive the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the embarrassing revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib, the bungled occupation, the mounting list of dead and wounded, and the rising economic toll. Most of all, this rationale highlights the conspicuous lack of a plausible theory of victory now. We are not losing because our troops lack public support. The war lacks support because we are losing.
If our Iraq adventure ends badly, there will be ample blame to go around. But the buck should stop, as President Harry Truman famously said, in the Oval Office. President Bush was quick to claim credit when things were going well, and he cannot escape blame when things turn ugly. This is President Bush’s war, and America’s failure will be his legacy.
Stephen M. Walt is academic dean at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. His latest book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy (New York: Norton, 2005).
