The "Surge" Is A Red Herring - Paul Craig Roberts - real targets are Iran and Syria

[pberq]

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070111_bush.htm

January 11, 2007
The "Surge" Is A Red Herring

By Paul Craig Roberts

Bush’s "surge" speech is a hoax, but members of Congress and media commentators are discussing the surge as if it were real.

I invite the reader to examine the speech. The "surge" content consists of nonsensical propagandistic statements. The real content of the speech is toward the end where Bush mentions Iran and Syria.

Bush makes it clear that success in Iraq does not depend on the surge. Rather, "Succeeding in Iraq . . . begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

Bush asserts that "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."

Bush’s assertions are propagandistic lies.

(more at link. . .)

[pberq]

1. And this was clear yesterday in the Senate hearing

Biden and others warned Rice that the Pres. does not have the authority to cross borders into Iran and Syria.

[pberq]

2. The "surge" is merely a tactic to buy time

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070111_bush.htm

. . .The "surge" is merely a tactic to buy time while war with Iran and Syria can be orchestrated. The neoconservative/Israeli cabal feared that the pressure that Congress, the public, and the American foreign policy establishment were putting on Bush to de-escalate in Iraq would terminate their plan to achieve hegemony in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq would mean the end of the neoconservatives’ influence. It would be impossible to start a new war with Iran after losing the war in Iraq.

The neoconservatives and the right-wing Israeli government have clearly stated their plans to overthrow Muslim governments throughout the region and to deracinate Islam. These plans existed long before 9/11.

Near the end of his "surge" speech, Bush adopts the neoconservative program as US policy. The struggle, Bush says, echoing the neoconservatives and the Israeli right-wing, goes far beyond Iraq. "The challenge," Bush says, is "playing out across the broader Middle East. . . . It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time." America is pitted against "extremists" who "have declared their intention to destroy our way of life." "The most realistic way to protect the American people," Bush says, is "by advancing liberty across a troubled region."

This, of course, is a massive duplicitous lie. We have brought no liberty to Iraq, but we have destroyed their way of life. Bush suggests that Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are waiting and hoping for more invasions to free them of violence. Did Bush’s invasion free Iraq from violence or did it bring violence to Iraq?

[bemildred]

3. Without war, there are no "war powers".

Without "war powers", there will shortly be a political house cleaning. Hence there must be war, and if Iraq will not do the job, Iran and Syria, and anyone else that might be suitable, must be brought into play.

[pberq]

4. great point! without non-stop war they are out