War on the World
John Calvin Jones
2007-01-12 | permalink | comment (2) | feedback |

On 10 January 2007, G. W. Bush announced his new “strategy” to “change America’s course in Iraq.”[1]  The highlights are as follows:

(1)   The new strategy for Iraq is an old set of tactics for policing Baghdad;

(2)   Bush declared that American troops have been stupid and incompetent;

(3)   Bush declared war on Iran (Iran has already attacked us); and

(4)   Bush is not going to put up with sneaky, conniving, two-faced Muslims anymore.

A. Safe behind enemy lines, but can’t get to the airport?

Bush told us that mistakes have been made.  And explained that there is no option but victory.  “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits.”  Of course, while the generals on the ground insisted that: (1) the U.S. invasion has already been a failure in December 2004[2]; and (2) no influx of U.S. troops now can fix the problem, Bush is giving orders to stay the course.  Or at least to try to reduce wide-spread violence in one city.

As explained by Bush, “The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad.  Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital.”  Though Bush adds that only [sic] Iraqis and the Iraqi government [sic] can end “the sectarian violence” and secure their people, in his standard Orwellian oratory, he invokes doublethink by telling us that: 

“to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help.  So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad.  … So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.  The vast majority of them … will be deployed to Baghdad …”

Ah yes, the new strategy is nothing like the old strategy – of house raids, patrol neighborhoods (with or without trained Iraqi police and military), all resulting in arrests, torture and urban guerrilla warfare.  The new strategy will be 20,000 additional troops in Baghdad who will conduct house raids, patrol neighborhoods, practice guerrilla warfare …

B. Shooting with blanks, it’s hard to exterminate roaches

According to Bush, this new strategy is needed because to this point, the American troops have been useless, ineffective, and incompetent.  Bush informed the world that:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents.  And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. 

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.  … In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. 

I know that Bush’s demand for 20,000 more troops as a “way forward” is insincere.  He cannot believe that any more American troops in Baghdad will help because Bush understands that our infantry is a sorry group. 

Consider, Bush says that previous American and Iraqi patrols cleared neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents.  By “cleared” he cannot mean killed, maimed or arrested.  Bush means that the American troops were incompetent – even with their superior firepower, night vision equipment, air cover, bombing raids, and snipers, the American military could not kill anyone – other than civilians.  How do I know?  Because Bush said:

“In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.” 

These insurgents and terrorists could only return if these same “killers” left the neighborhoods alive and kicking.  People without arms or brain injuries do not return as killers.  This means when engaged in firefights with Iraqi terrorists, American troops shoot and miss! 

Curious, how is it that the Bush military strategy is not overtly designed to kill and maim civilians, destroy infrastructure, hospitals, electricity production and Iraqi civil society?  Over 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since March 2003 can be attributed directly to the illegal U.S. invasion and occupation.  About 100 bodies per day are brought to the morgue in Baghdad.  To compare the number of U.S. troops deaths versus Iraqis, the kill ratio is at least 200 to 1.  But if the non-American terrorists killers are roaming the streets of Baghdad, what has our military been doing?  Bush describes them as no better than undercover vice squad cops in New York who kill the innocent first then define the dead as criminals.

And now Bush implied that the gloves are coming off?  Does this mean more or fewer rapes?  More or fewer amputees, Haditha parties, and car bombs?  Who will be killing the pregnant women at the checkpoints, the trained Iraqis or those Americans newly deployed to Baghdad?

C. Now for something completely different

Hours after the Bush speech, the U.S. military raided an Iranian consulate in the Iraqi city of Irbil (in the Kurdish north – which has largely been independent of Iraq and not involved in sectarian Shia v. Sunni violence) and arrested diplomats and staff.[3]

Such an attack was apparently necessary or deserved for, according to Bush: 

Succeeding in Iraq also requires … addressing Iran and Syria.  These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq.  Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.  We will disrupt the attacks on our forces.  We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.  And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

Hurray!  Finally Bush is going to attack the other party in the Tripod of Evil.  And he is not going to take half-measures against this immediate and growing threat!

“I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot Air Defense Systems to reassure our friends and allies.  We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border.  And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.”

I am sure that this time, even though Colin Powell is not available to convince the American media, everyone, even those pacifists at the UN, will know that Bush is only looking to do God’s work – and protect American interests in the region.  I mean, nuclear weapons for India are a social good, India is a democracy.  Nuclear weapons in Pakistan are good too.  Just because Pakistan is a Muslim nation (no Shia or Sunni there), governed by a military dictatorship – that’s what Bush called it in 2000, and the Pakistanis have agreed to a ceasefire with the Taliban (heck Pakistan helped to create the Taliban), the world is a better place when more countries enter into the nuclear family … except Iran.

Hopefully FOX will have some embedded reporters so we can see Freedom’s Power when it hits Tehran before al-Jazeera twists everything.

D. Sunni, Shia?  I thought they’re Muslims? 

Bush has put the leaders of the Iraqi government on notice – shape up, or we’ll ship out.  This is important because those Islamo-fascists have played on our sympathies too long.  There just seems to be one problem.  How can we distinguish between good Shia and bad, good Muslims and radical extremists?     

Despite his best intentions, it is time to admit that our Ivy League trained, Ahistorian-in-Chief does not know a thing about world history, the corruption and abuse in the cause of the Christian crusades (past or present), nor the political differences in modern Islam.  When briefed by some Iraqi-Americans who attempted to explain that, as with Christianity, there are varied sects of Islam, Shia and Sunni, Bush responded, “but I thought the Iraqis are Muslims?[4]

During Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, the minority Sunni enjoyed political prominence and the Shia majority faced the brunt of his political repression.  So as the CIA collaborated with and paid English speaking Iraqis – ready to overthrow Hussein (while hiding behind American tanks and bombers) in their divide and conquer strategy, the Americans sided with the Shia.  And so, all the appointed and US approved Iraqi leaders have been Shia, like current PM, Nouri al-Maliki. 

What is the problem?  Apparently, for some inexplicable reason, the Iranians are mad at the U.S.  Bush tells us that this Shia majority neighboring Iraq is “supporting radical elements that are forming death squads.”  If the radical and extremist elements are forming death squads, and there is no reason not to believe the intelligence reports that Bush cites, it looks like congratulations are in order, for imitation is the highest form of flattery. 

Death squads were central to the U.S. anti-democracy, and pro-dictatorship policy called the El Salvador option.  The El Salvador Option refers to the Reaganite program of terror in the tiny Central American nation in the 1980s, run by then U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte out of Honduras.  Somehow, after G. W. Bush made Negroponte U.S. Ambassador to Iraq then Director of National Intelligence, the Pentagon announced that it would create Shia death squads in January 2005 – just in time for the Iraqi elections![5]

That Shia of Iran have gone out of their way to side with Shia in Iraq, just like the Bush administration, and been able to convince the radical elements to revolt against the Iraqi government, just like the Bush administration did, shows how evil and treacherous Iranians are.  One would think that as Bush helped liberate the Shia of Iraq, their brethren in Iran would be grateful.  But no.  The Iranians, bloodthirsty and conniving have attacked, because that is exactly what we would not expect them to do.  It must be because of … hmm … jealousy, or they hate American freedom ... er …

Rest assured, as Bush says, he has benefited from the advice of the Iraq Study Group.  That the ISG advised the Bush administration to normalize relations with Iran is unimportant.  The way forward is to conquer those whom Bush calls atheists, the Muslims, and then we need to crush those Sunni and Shia too.  

Now I know why Bush as ordered those carrier groups off the coast of Iran.  I can see the banner now, Mission Accomplished!

John Calvin Jones
2007-01-12 | permalink | comment (2) | feedback | Digg This! |

(Top)

Sources

[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

[2] The U.S. has already failed – as Bush admits.  Further in December 2004, the Pentagon told us and the world that the illegal U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq only served to encourage Wahhabism, and the al Qaeda roles) [2] US admits the war for hearts and minds in Iraq is now lost Pentagon, The Sunday Herald, December 26, 2004, Neil Mackay

[3] Los Times, Kurds Oppose U.S. Raid On Envoys.  The Day, 12 January 2007, http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=79c13e49-3557-4a43-b0f2-6e85045f896a

[4] Christian Avard.  “Ambassador claims shortly before invasion, Bush didn't know there were two sects of Islam.”  Raw Story, Friday August 4, 2006.  http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html

[5] Roland Watson.  “El Salvador-style 'death squads' to be deployed by US against Iraq militants.”  The Times (UK), January 10, 2005

(Top)

---

(Top)