Trojan Tarbaby -- Why We Are Stuck In Iraq

[DaveT]

The enigma for those of us who oppose George Walker Bush is just how stupid is this man?

We have nothing close to consensus on this rather significant question. Some dismiss him as an utterly brainless figurehead who could not find Iraq on a map. Others contend that he is a little smarter than his bumbling syntax and misadventures with pronunciation might suggest, but still maintain that his role in the government is largely to serve as a front for Dick Cheney or other puppet masters.

A few progressives suspect cunning from this lazy and shallow exemplar of unearned wealth and status, and see his grinning chimpanzee persona as a con job that enables him to connect with genuinely stupid voters while disarming critics who “misunderestimate” him.

Yet another perspective on Bush holds that he is mentally unhinged in any of a wide variety of maladies – a religious fantast or perhaps a psychopathic monster who feigns piety as a cover for his lust for blood and global mayhem.

Who knows for sure?

The weirdness of Bush’s public policy compounds the mystery of figuring out who this man really is. Four years into “The War on Terror” it is just about impossible to take the President’s policies at face value – even by his own supporters.

What ever happened to the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the promise to bring him back dead or alive?

What is the purpose of the occupation of Iraq?

These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of the Bush Presidency and they also explain both the rise and fall of his political appeal within the United States.

The incoherent answers offered by the Bush Administration to these key questions are cast into the sharpest relief yet by the terrorist attack in London this week.

This is taken from the Financial Times of London:

Bush has to review strategy, say US experts


A constant theme of the Bush administration is that America and the world are safer because of the US invasion of Iraq and its anti-terror strategy.

That argument prevailed during the US presidential election campaign last year, despite even official US evidence to the contrary, but may have been finally buried by Thursday’s bombings in London.

/snip/

Last September, at the peak of his re-election campaign, Mr Bush told the Republican national convention: “We are staying on the offensive striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. Our strategy is succeeding. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.”

=== break===

Experts in Washington said following the blasts that it was time for the Bush administration to re-evaluate its strategy.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1c75f59e-ef05-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8.html


This sickening soundbite – we are fighting them there so that we do not have to face them here – is the most cynical lie in American history. It is idiotic. It is irrational. It is intended to con racist ignoramuses. And it is the ultimate shame of our era that the mass media conspired with the Bush Administration to advance this preposterous idea as though it were a serious statement of public policy.

Occupying Afghanistan and Iraq does nothing to prevent terrorists from infiltrating Spain or Britain or the USA. In literal terms, the Bush line claims that terrorists are so stupid that they will abandon any idea of taking an international trip to the open society of the West so that they can go take a different international trip for a crack at well armed GIs in Iraq. Well, the blasts in London bring further discussion of the Bush “strategy” to a screeching and – one would hope – final stop.

Of course, this Bush line is just lame propaganda, and it is almost funny to see the stodgy FT take it so seriously while declaring it a dead letter. But that leaves the question of what is the Bush government really trying to accomplish.

Why the hell are we in Iraq?

Perhaps the most common explication of Bushism turns to the Project For A New American Century (PNAC). These “intellectuals” have publicly argued from questionable metaphors such as “draining the swamp of the Middle East” that the USA and its allies should systematically remake the political culture of the entire region, with “regime change” as the primary tool. The idea is that secular democracy and free market economies will create a different social environment that will not tolerate terrorists.

The neoconservatives within the Bush Administration who advocate this grand strategy unapologetically proclaim that this project will take several decades to complete. The lapdog American media for the most part avoid exploring the implications of this bizarre proposition – but, even if taken at face value, it means that there will be no relief from the threat of terrorist attacks until all these terror-friendly regimes get changed. The best case scenario for this “strategy” offers at least a generation of vulnerability to more catastrophic events like September 11.

The USA is a secular democracy with free markets but that did not prevent Timothy McVeigh from blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Obviously, there are some problems with the first premise of the PNAC party line.

Are Bush and his backers serious about this as a way to protect us? If so, they are indeed some very stupid and insane people.

Most progressives, of course, do not take the PNAC fantasy of universal American Empire at face value. The most obvious counter-narrative holds that the PNAC story is merely a gloss for the familiar “great game” of taking oil from the people who live over it.

I submit that this analysis of the Bush gang does not hold together, either.

Twenty-eight months into the occupation, the USA has not secured control of Iraq or its oil. Nor is there much prospect of either thing happening any time soon. Recently, there has been a spate of mainstream chin stroking over the weird stalemate that Bush has created in Iraq. Here is a good example:

Experts: No good options for Iraq

WASHINGTON - In the swirling debate over Iraq, all sides agree on one thing: There's no easy way out.

The military options under discussion within the administration, in Congress and at various think tanks fall into four broad categories: rapid withdrawal, gradual withdrawal, military escalation and staying the course charted by Bush. . . .

/snip/

-MORE TROOPS: A military escalation in Iraq may be a tough sell politically, but it's not a new idea. Weeks before the war's start, Army Gen. Eric Shinseki told a congressional committee that pacifying Iraq would require "several hundred thousand" troops.

His remarks angered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who publicly rebuked him, but some members of Congress think Shinseki was right. In their view, the stakes in Iraq demand an all-out commitment.

/snip/

Bush says escalation would send the wrong signal to Iraqi security forces and the insurgents.

"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight," Bush said. "And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12077413.htm


I remain surprised that the question of why Bush, Cheney and Rummy put the kibosh on General Shinseki receives very little attention, even among progressives. The usual dismissive response that I have experienced is that Rummy and the Neocons “really believed” that our troops would be welcomed as liberators. When Shinseki undermined their rosy optimism, they brushed him aside only out of political convenience, or so the conventional thinking on the subject holds.

Since these guys lie about everything, and since they give every indication of being infinitely ruthless as well as crudely clever about their manipulation of American politics, I just don’t buy the idea that they bumbled their way into the Iraqi quagmire.

The fact that they refuse to consider more troops now gives the game away, as far as I am concerned.

More troops would allow a Falluja style suppression of the entire country of Iraq, with GIs and Iraqi henchmen kicking down virtually every door in the country, disarming the population. Bush has no compunction against reestablishing the kind of rule that Saddam Hussein imposed on Iraq, and I think Shinseki’s estimate of maybe 400,000 GIs could do it in a couple of years or so.

Even if this kind of escalation were to come up short, it at least would increase security enough for the Americans to crank the Iraqi oil industry up to a more lucrative level of production.

A real war of conquest of Iraq would require some form of a draft, and that would pose some political problems for Bush. But this is just another way of saying that Bush is not serious about winning the war in Iraq.

No, Bush is institutionalizing a stalemate that shows no reasonable hope of resolution, ever.

The Iraqization of the war that is implicit in Bush’s public defense of his policy is laughable – the idea that we will train the Iraqi army to act like the American Army. If we cannot suppress the rebellion with our infinitely superior military technology, how can our Iraqi clients possibly succeed when we are gone?

Furthermore, if and when a new “strongman” does emerge in Iraq to do what it takes to disarm the opposition, how do we know that he will let us control the Iraqi oil? If by some bizarre alignment of the stars it turns out that Bush could “turn over” control of Iraq to the Iraqis, our progressive suspicion that this was all about oil would evaporate.

Viewed from any angle, the Bush policy does not promise American control of Iraqi oil.

What it does promise, however, is perpetual wartime profits for Halliburton and the other sponsors of the Bush political machine.

What the stalemate promises is a perpetual justification for American bases that can be used as staging areas for future phony wars against Syria and Iran.

How much does George Walker Bush, the individual, know about what his government is doing? It is impossible to tell from the outside. But his administration, taken as a whole, is either the stupidest, stubbornest set of morons ever to run a great nation state – or they are front men for the biggest con yet in American history.

My money is on it being a massive con job.

[ConsAreLiars]

1. Excellent analysis.

But I disagree slightly. Getting control of the region (and its resources) was the primary goal. The alternative, if that failed, of perpetual chaos and eternal war was also seen as a win. In either case they would come out ahead, according to their value system.

(edit to add: Welcome to DU, you will be an asset to this community.)

[yurbud]

3. yep. oil = $$$. Chaos = arms = $$$

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[DemInDistress]

2. regarding"we fight them there" so we dont fight them here

sounds to me like an invitation to strike us here.my beliefs are chimp and cheney want the next attack on the usa with or without help.For some reason i see Martial Law on the horizon.The executive orders have been signed,FEMA has ready and staffed 800 prison camps,some with rail capabilities,the U.S.Army has plans for Civilian Inmate labor programs.Was London a pre-cursor? Frankly i was surprised is wasnt America...anyway good points in your story

[no_hypocrisy]

4. And *'s personal reasons for being Iraq must be considered.

1. * has a bone to pick with his father since Day One, going back to childhood like a classic Freudian exercise. GHW Bush left Bagdad and Saddam alone after consideration with the best military minds available at the time. No regrets. But "Jr." had to show that his father was wrong (thereby tacitly endorsing the premise that his father was "weak" and he therefore was "strong"). He had to beat Daddy in the presidential legacy thing. By getting installed as Preasident (read, better contacts that Dad), * could go down in history as saving the Free World or something like that and show Dad who "The Man" was every day of his presidency. Also showing Jebbie that JB is the loser, not him.

2. * has a messiah complex. Not only can he properly interpret what Jesus wants, but he was chosen by God to lead us all, even if we're too stupid or moral to recognize his authority. He will lead a new Crusade into the Holy Land, give Israel it's original territories as promised to Abraham and Isaac (not Ismael, as per Islam) by God, get some booty for his buds (oil, land, etc.), and be adored for his moxy.

Two things existed to make this happen: He had a defective ego and he had enablers who knew that they could effectively use him as a front man (like a confidence game) to get the job done. Think about this for example: if the PNAC wanted to alienate the U.S. from the rest of the world, they would need a leader to piss off anyone he talked to, like *. Treaties would be ignored, not entered into, or maybe broken. Extra points for destroying the U.N. They looked at *, who more or less made anyone with a brain get insulted and angry, and said "That's our boy!"

Folks, how we got here is not accident of fate.

[DaveT]

10. I can't disagree with the psychological angle, but

we are through the looking glass here, people.

Looking at the projected image of Shrubbie through the various mediated windows available to us in this bizarre Information Age, you cannot discount the possibility of the Paranoid Truth -- ie "that's what they want you to believe."

In acting school they teach you to build upon your own personal weirdnesses to create a believable persona. It is almost as plausible to me to consider that this Walking Oediputz Complex is as much a part of the sham as the overemphasized hick accent and the willful mispronunciation of "nukular."

And the messianic madness is even more likely to be an exaggerated con job -- although I can't claim to know for sure about that either.

What IS clear however is the harmony between the surface story of the righteous hick as front man, the PNAC gurus as idealogical guiding lights and the underlying theft of the public treasury by the political sponsors of the whole pathetic show.

It is interesting to speculte as to how much of their own bullshit that these people believe, but impossible to resolve.

What is easy to see -- if people just will use their heads -- is that it is all absurd from the gitgo.

[julianer]

5. If you step back a bit and see things in terms

of rising and declining economic power then there is obviously a major shift in power going on.

Falling empires are frequently in the position the US finds itself in now: massive military strength but failing economic strength. The only option for the US is to project its military strength in order to prop up its economic weakness. Fundamentally this was the SU's position toward the end - using military force to ensure its economic rule.

Of course the PNACers didn't see things in this light. Their fundamental mistake was in thinking (a la Fujiyama) that the end of the Soviet Union meant the permanent victory of capitalism. What they failed to recognise is that though the Soviet Union collapsed, the effort taken to achieve 'victory' has also critically weakened the US - it has enormous, largely redundant military power but its raison d'etre, to be an alternative model and ideology to the SU, has also disappeared. It doesn't look so great when seen in isolation, particularly when it isn't being compared with something as gruesome as the SU.

We have seen the fall of the Soviet empire and my belief is that we are now seeing the fall of its opposing empire.

[leftchick]

6. Very well done!

Massive con job indeed! And the latest "leaks" about the US and UK planning an exit next year? The UK has already publicly stated they are drawing down troops in Iraq and sending more to Afghanistan. The part about the US considering leaving is laughable. The neo-cons will keep our forces in Iraq as long as they are in power. Which appears will be for a very long time. :(


Welcome to DU DaveT!

Excellent post!

:toast:

[leftchick]

7. The fact that people believe this boggles my mind...

<snip>

Some have questioned whether Bush's strategy to fight the terrorists abroad so "we do not have to face them at home" is working when terrorists are planting bombs on London's public transportation. Great Britain is a key member of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

Bush's homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, defended the strategy during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

The war in Iraq, she said, attracts terrorists there "where we have a fighting military and a coalition that can take them on and not have the sort of civilian casualties that you saw in London."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=At170
_I0DxKcCca8XF4jheuyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Vitruvius]

8. There's a sucker born every minute. And Bu$h & the Rethugs know it.

Without them, there would be no Rethugnican party -- only a small gang of rich country-club cranks.

[teknomanzer]

9. The whole idea is absurd...

If people in this country had any critical thinking skills at all they would see right through this farcical concept of "fighting" terrorists.

Terrorists are NOT soldiers. It is NOT their intention to fight. They don't want to fight anyone. They want to AVOID direct confrontation - which is essentially the definition of combat. They are not about to give up their terrorist STRATEGY to pick up arms and fight a technologically superior and well equipped army in Iraq.

Terrorism is an act of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY and the tools used to interrupt such acts are found in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. These are the people best equipped to deal with terrorism.

Fielding an army to solve the problem of terrorism (notice the absence of the words 'fight' or 'combat') is like using a sledge hammer to swat flies. Why use a sword when a scalpel is more appropriate. Unless of course the plan has nothing to do with solving the terrorist problem.