How Bush Can Win

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

How Bush Can Win

Postby professorpan » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:33 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/20/iraqs_uncomfortable_realities.php">www.tompaine.com/articles...lities.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Crossposted at my blog.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>How Bush Can Win</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Excellent analysis from Robert Dreyfuss (author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam). I can't sum it up better than this:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>. . . In regard to the crucial question of whether President Bush's stay-the-course strategy can succeed . . . the answer, unfortunately, is: Yes, it can.<br><br>The Bush administration's strategy in Iraq today, as in the invasion of 2003, is: Use military force to destroy the political infrastructure of the Iraqi state; shatter the old Iraqi armed forces; eliminate Iraq as a determined foe of U.S. hegemony in the oil-rich Persian Gulf; build on the wreckage of the old Iraq a new state beholden to the U.S.; create a new political class willing to be subservient to our interests in the region; and use that new Iraq as a base for further expansion.<br><br>To achieve all that, the President is determined to keep as much military power as he can in Iraq for as long as it takes, while recruiting, training, funding, and supervising a ruthless Iraqi police and security force that will gradually allow the American military to reduce their "footprint" in the country without entirely leaving. The endgame, as he and his advisors imagine it, would result in a permanent U.S. military presence in the country, including permanent bases and basing rights, and a predominant position for U.S. business and oil interests.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yep. What he said. I just wish progressives could stop using the term "failed mission" and harping on incompetency when describing the Iraq misadventure, when, in reality, everything is going exactly as it was planned. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bush Can Win

Postby sunny » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:21 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>in reality, everything is going exactly as it was planned.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>I couldn't agree more. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: How Bush Can Win

Postby isachar » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:24 pm

"I just wish progressives could stop using the term "failed mission" and harping on incompetency when describing the Iraq misadventure, when, in reality, everything is going exactly as it was planned."<br><br>Precisely. <p></p><i></i>
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bush Can Win

Postby Rigorous Intuition » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:56 pm

Many liberals and progressives tend to make a universal constant of their own values. The neo-cons and old-line fascists play to that, and take up the banner of peace and justice. They become the public benchmark of success, though their opposites have always been the intention.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Rigorous Intuition
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bush Can Win

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:22 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"...The endgame, as he and his advisors imagine it, would result in a permanent U.S. military presence in the country, including permanent bases and basing rights, and a predominant position for U.S. business and oil interests...."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I'm not so sure. What the Bushies haven't taken into account are some wild cards, such as the power that religion holds, especially with the group that the Bushies accidentally enthroned. Another problem is that a new political structure has been built, which means...politicians, religious ones who MAY answer to Iraqi voters better than they do here in the States. These new religious politicians are less secular, more by-the-book (Quran?) than politicians in the West, may possess standards, even if those are their standards, not ours. They also have more in common with Iran. Combine just those two influences, and there may be some fireworks down the road. And these are only two of the wild cards. I think they are going to tell us in the next year or two to leave. Then what do we do? This should be interesting.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bush Can Win

Postby StarmanSkye » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:53 pm

Yes, I too think Dreyfuss provides an excellant analysis, and agree with his thesis that the many details of America's Iraq policy were deliberately contrived for intended effect, and as such is essentially pretty-much still on-track; The radical neoliberal formula instituted by Bremer (as per orders re: a meticulous plan enabling unprecedented opportunity for corporate pillaging on a massive scale) constituted cold-blooded, brutal and opportunistic calculation. Of course an authentic democracy would NEVER endorse let alone accept the enormous giveaway advantages granted to foreign businesses and that virtually guarantees the Iraq public its own disempowered exploitation -- so the piecemeal fragmentation and dissolution of Iraqi society had to be a key US strategy in order to prevent effective organized challenge to those entirely illegal 'laws'. Thus, even the seemingly problematic, counter-productive 'mistakes' of disbanding the Iraq Military and removing all Ba'athists from their civil service, professional and career positions must be seen, in retrospect, as being deviously practical and even necessary.<br><br>As Dreyfuss points out, the neocon-led gamble indeed MAY yet triumph. With the GOP mostly in single-minded cohesive solidarity and the majority of Democrats agreeing in principle that despite the war's false, duplicious premise it MUST be supported at all costs, the American leadership apparently lacks the moral clarity, courage and sufficient integrity to confront the fact of its criminal complicity in the abuses, war crimes and genocide the US has been engaged in -- all reflective of the immense racism behind America's double standards and latent hypocrisy that discounts innocent Iraqi lives as incredibly cheap. This 'allows' America's politicos and Generalisimos and functionaries to evade the issue of responsibility. The blood of perhaps 200,000 Iraqi citizens is on the Bush Gang's dirty hands, with uncounted horrors and tortures and atrocities and sufferings -- while Saddams odious 'crimes' with which he's charged constitute at best a tiny portion of this magnitude -- almost one percent of Iraq's total population. It would be as if a foreign power invaded America on the basis of transparently specious lies and killed some 3 million American civilians. This point is underscored by the evident hostility of American 'leaders' to the issue of amnesty for Iraqis who may have killed American troops (who, after all, were an illegal invading army of occupation guilty of immense atrocities, humiliations, destruction and depraved brutalities). And yet, in all but very few cases, American deliberate (or thru depraved indifference) killings of Iraqi innocents remain uninvestigated, unreported and often even uncompensated, or minimally so (and often not even apologized for).<br><br>From the article cited:<br>" An aide to Maliki even suggested an amnesty for armed fighters who have killed U.S. troops. That's a good idea, and it's been raised more than once since 2003. In this case, though, an ignorant Sen. Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and Senate minority leader, expressed outrage at the idea of an amnesty. According to the Washington Post, which first reported the amnesty idea, the Maliki aide who suggested it was fired."<br><br>There's not even a single point re: America's gratuitous and wholly opportunistic invasion of Iraq that can be judged a positive, beneficial thing, NOT tied to issues of greed or abuse of power or rewarding the MIC.<br><br>60 years ago, the CIAs' role in subverting justice and soverignty in the Middle East and Central America (and elsewhere), and undermining democratic institutions SHOULD have been widely publicized, investigated, and those responsible through the chain of command prosecuted and severely punished as an object lesson. It was the American System's failure (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) to stand-up for critical principles of Law that has led to this current Constitutional Crisis of illegal wars, war crimes and atrocities, Executive criminality and endemic corruption throughout the Defense Industry, Congress and the Intelligence Agencies.<br><br>Very often, political decisions and Foreign Policy actions DO have serious, long-lasting consequences that affect many millions of people's lives. That 'lesson' is something the ruling class elites have gone to enormous lengths to prevent the public from learning -- or else the American individuals and government organizations involved in illegally conspiring to place Saddam into power would have paid dearly for their crimes, and policy that allowed such abuse would have been substantially reformed to prevent any repeats of such irresponsible idiocies.<br><br>Alas ...<br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bush Can Win

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:12 pm

You are all so pessimistic, but I'm not sure it is totally warranted. I see the Iraqis with some surprising strengths. Iraq may eventually work its way through this latest challenge, but it will be in spite of the Bushies, not because of them. True, it may get worse before it gets better, but that is the way with such drastic change. Iraqis remind me a bit of the Russians, so resilient. But if I am right, the right is not going to like what it has birthed. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 6/20/06 9:13 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

I hate the "incompetency" line

Postby yesferatu » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:48 pm

Like I said in another thread, we have men like Murtha arguing to pull out of Iraq, with incompetency being their argument for how we "failed". <br><br>Oh come ON!!<br><br>Like I said I don't dislike Murtha or others like him who are saying leave, Mutha is considered important to some extent because of the "newsy" look to it: the old crusty military man calling Bush "to account". <br> <br>But he, and those who nod their heads in agreement with him, just have to stand back one moment and realize how impotent their "stand" is, simply because it is not based in reality. <br>Does Murtha believe...really believe...that they spent 75 million on a vatican sized embassy, built permanent bases, bankrolled the invasion on high stakes dangerous economics, stealing oil, purposely fueled anti-america hatred for future scenarios of of conflict, etc. etc. and that they might NOW listen to those who say just say "leave"?<br>It is mere political theater that may have meant something once. It is typical blindness by the so-called progressives, affords them their crutch of "I-can-explain-all-this-as-incompetency", and in saying "leave now" makes for a comfortable stop point where few go any further and contemplate changing the debate with an evolutionary leap in a new debate: to proclaim the Bush cabal as war criminals which must be brought to justice. No, can't say that. That would make progressives sound like yukky traitors. <br><br>But leave Iraq now? Come on. There is a culling going on, and goddamn if they are gonna leave now.... culling takes time. <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
yesferatu
 

Re: I hate the "incompetency" line

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:51 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/#37892">www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/#37892</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The perils of romanticizing Murtha<br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I hate the "incompetency" line

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:11 am

I will play devil's advocate to myself here, though, and ask if anyone has a map of the hotspots in the Middle East and Africa. Seems that most of those places involve battles over the contol of potential oil supplies and profits from those supplies. Just thinking of Angola and the Sudan. Still, I have this inclination to believe that Iraq's oil crisis may not be to the benefit of the usual suspects. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Iraq

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests