|
Edited on Tue Oct-17-06 12:47 AM by Dover
Mods, this is from Moore's email newsletter and can be printed in full (though I haven't done so). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I posted this article awhile back. It had the ring of truth to it, though it was still too early to tell for sure. But I'd say by the looks of things now, R. Moore has made a good argument for the current strategic shift and the reasons we had to endure Bushco. His article was originally an attempt to make sense of why Brzezinski (and others), was suddenly coming out of the woodwork to challenge Bush's policies. Particularly considering the policies in his book that seemed to have laid the foundation for many of these policies in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I recommend reading both the Brzezinski article which R. Moore was responding to as well as his response in full, but here's what I think are the salient parts relative to the political sea change we are currently experiencing: ZB: That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision makers for motives still
not fully exposed, propagated publicly by demagogic rhetoric reliant on false
assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than
anticipated.
All of this applies equally to the war Brzezinski helped create in Afghanistan,
apart perhaps for the part about anticipated costs. In truth he is the pot
calling the kettle black, although given his stature he can probably assume most
readers wouldn't be noticing his own true color.
So far, it seems Brzezinski is simply doing a hatchet job on Bush, using his
prestige, saying whatever works as anti-Bush propaganda. This would indicate
that the CFR-level community is ready to dump Bush, as they dumped Nixon, hoping
that all the shit will stick to him as they flush him away, as it did with
Nixon: the scapegoat scenario. Compounding U.S. political dilemmas is the
degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for
decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other
violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly
qualify as respect for human dignity.
Ditto pot & kettle; ditto scapegoat propaganda. But it need not be so. A real
course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and
common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional
leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an
increasingly divided and troubled nation.
This is totally in line with a 'clean flush' agenda. they dump Bush, everyone in
Washington and media-land reveals they didn't really like his policies in the
first place, and Americans believe that democracy has been restored - as they
did when Nixon resigned.
If Bush were to scale back his goals in Iraq, that would be a retreat, a failure
- not only for Bush, but for America's reputation as a tough guy that you better
watch out for. But if the whole situation can be blamed entirely on Bush - a
rogue President who lost it, like Nixon - then any retrenchment will be seen as
well-intentioned attempt to clean up an unfortunate mess. The Establishment
survives, and all options are open as regards policy shifts.
But then we'd be left with Cheney and Rumsfeld. Either they'd need to be dumped
as well, or else they could have 'changes of heart' - they were only taking
orders and being good soldiers - like the fearsome flying monkeys who became
like puppies once the wicked witch had been slain. In a bipartisan setting, it
would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but
actually to get out - perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the
United States leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach
a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly
prevail.
Brzezinski knows full well that the U.S. will never vacate Iraq. We've built,
and are still building, very permanent military bases, establishing just the
kind of imperial infrastructure Brzezinski himself so eloquently promotes. He
never mentions in this article the elephant in the kitchen - oil - and he knows
full well that the U.S. will never relinquish control over those reserves now
that control has been achieved. The PNAC document says that the issue of Iraq
transcends the issue of Saddam's regime; similarly it transcends Bush's regime.
Brzezinski is simply taking a 'high moral ground' position with his withdrawal
ruse, donning the feathers of a dove, knowing that the stand has no practical
political relevance.
The substance of his proposal has to do with the 'bipartisan' approach and the
opening-up of options. The bipartisan part is important, because it reinforces
the image of 'democracy restored'. It is a safe tactic, given that the Democrats
on The Hill are not substantially different then Republicans in their politics.
And they will fall over themselves with glee at being invited back into the
bargain-politics arena.
In fact, Brzezinski is
proposing that the U.S. abandon any pretense of, or responsibility for,
restoring order or establishing democracy in Iraq, even to the point of simply
cutting and running - even a bloodbath would be acceptable.
Once options are opened up that widely for discussion, one can rather easily
predict the 'salvage strategy' that is likely to be adopted. That strategy will
have, I imagine, two parts: one about the Iraqis, and one about the oil.
As regards the oil, the decision will be that the reserves are too important to
the world economy to be put under Iraqi control 'during a period of adjustment
and instability'. As a trustee for the world, and for the Iraqis, the U.S. will
'protect and operate' the oil fields in 'the interim', and will need its bases
for that purpose, and to ensure instability in Iraq doesn't spill over the
borders.
As regards the Iraqis, based on the current covert campaign to stir up a civil
war in Iraq, and the relative autonomy given to the Kurds, it seems the policy
will be centered around dividing Iraq up into mini-states. along
ethnic-religious lines: Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, etc. This would divide the
problem of controlling the region into manageable chunks, and lead to a
combination of stability and instability, providing maximum flexibility as
regards future interventions.
The mini-states would be a bit like the Palestinian areas in Israel: treated as
autonomous with respect to dealing with their own problems of survival, yet
always vulnerable to air strikes, blockades, or other relatively inexpensive yet
effective interventions. We might keep in mind that Israeli security personnel
have been busy training the U.S. occupation forces in how to deal with the Iraqi
resistance, based on their experience with, and policies toward, the
Palestinians. We might also recall the years of sanctions, no-fly zones, etc.
It would not be difficult to sell this plan to the Iraqis. If the U.S. ended its
attacks in Iraq, offered significant funds and assistance for infrastructure
reconstruction, and promised to withdraw its forces to its bases (and pipelines,
and oil fields, and national borders) the Iraqis would have little choice but to
go along with the full package, despite its drawbacks. They are sick of the
fighting, and life is almost impossible under the occupation and with most
infrastructures not operating.
This way the U.S. gets everything it ever wanted in Iraq - bases and oil - and
it can free its troops from an engagement that never did serve any useful
purpose for 'U.S. interests'. The world will be so relieved to see the end of
the unpopular war that they will not challenge our residual presence and role,
nor will they berate us for Bush's prior mistakes. Bush served a useful purpose
by getting us into Iraq and creating a situation so grotesque that anything less
will now be perceived as being acceptable. He took a mile and we can keep the
inch we really want.
That is how U.S. strategic planners will view the situation, and perhaps how
they have viewed it from the beginning. The whole neocon clique were known to be
a pack of attack dogs: they were unleashed; they captured territory; we can now
apologize that they got off leash; and we get to keep the bits we want. It was
necessary that Bush based the campaign on lies, so that we can now say that he
was wrong but he was sincere and perhaps deranged - getting us off the hook for
our actual oil-imperialist motivation. Before joining the neocon lynch mob,
recall Bob Dylan's words to those who felt like lynching Medgar Evers' killer:
"He was only a pawn in their game."
As a consequence of this well-thought-out grand strategy, if that's what it has
been, the U.S. would emerge not only with its oil and bases, but with most of
its military forces mobilized and freed up from active assignments. After a bit
of R&R, and the sending home of the most exhausted, the rest would be all ready
for the next major PNAC campaign. And this time we will have a much better cover
story: another false-flag event, 9/11 number two.
Brzezinski is playing the role of Antony, in Julius Caesar. In his dove clothes,
he tells us he "has not come to praise war, but to bury it." But in the end, his
words set the stage for the next episode of combat.
The opening up of options is also very important.
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/3709708.html?mode=reply
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
