-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 19, 2007 8:39:34 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Petraeus Lets Slip the Ugly Truth of This War
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
From: "Jim S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 19, 2007 7:48:23 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Petraeus Lets Slip the Ugly Truth of This War
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18419.htm
*Petraeus Lets Slip the Ugly Truth of This War*
By Andrew Sullivan
09/19/07
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/
article2459936.ece
"The Times" -- 09/16/07 -- When historians look back on the past
week in
Washington, I suspect they will see it as a seminal moment. It was
the moment
when the president and his party recommitted themselves to an
indefinite,
decades-long Iraq occupation, and when the Iraq war was formally
handed over to
the next president, with forces near the maxed-out 2006 level.
The realist and moderate Republicans were essentially defused by
the calm,
factual demeanour of General David Petraeus, with the key senators
John Warner,
Richard Lugar, and Pete Domenici deferring to the president in the
face of the
first trickle of good news from Anbar.
Amazingly, the president even got the press to echo the notion that
he is
actually withdrawing troops, when he is simply maintaining the
maximum level
compatible with not breaking the U.S. military entirely.
And so, barring something unforeseen, after the surge dies its
predicted cyclical
death next spring, well over 100,000 American troops will likely be
occupying
Iraq when the next president takes office.
The argument that won the day is that however deep the current
hole, leaving now
would create an even deeper one. So, theyre digging some more.
For me, the critical exchange evinced a response from Petraeus
that, after a
recess, he decided to withdraw. Too late. The truth had been
blurted out. When
staunch Republican Senator John Warner asked him: "Does the [Iraq
war] make
America safer?" Petraeus replied with admirable honesty: "I don't
know,
actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."
Who in the administration, one wonders, has?
Let us review the stated objectives of the Iraq war chronologically:
2002: to disarm Saddam Hussein of stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction and
create a breathing space for democracy in the Middle East (the
W.M.D.s were not
there; the breathing space became anarchy).
2003: to allow chaos in order to create a "fly-paper" for every
jihadist in the
world to come and get slaughtered by the U.S. ("Bring it on!").
2004: to create a new democratic constitution (achieved on paper,
but at the
price of creating sectarian voting blocs that actually intensified
the ethnic and
religious divisions pulling the country apart).
2005: to protect Iraq from a powerful and growing Sunni insurgency
and disarm the
Shi'ite militias (failed).
2006: to quell surging sectarian violence, target a new and lethal
Al-Qaeda in
Iraq and restrain the passions unleashed by the bombing of the
Samarra mosque
(failed).
2007: to prevent genocide and a wider regional war and create
enough peace for a
settlement in the centre (the surge has reduced violence to levels
of summer
2006, and no agreement in Baghdad has been reached).
And so the question becomes: what will the objective of the Iraq
war be next
year? Given the dizzying succession of rationales presented and
subsequently
withdrawn by the president and his supporters, the possibilities
are many.
Some cynics argue that George Bush is playing a small, domestic
game of keeping
the ordeal going so that the next Democratic president can be
accused of losing
Iraq -- not him. But this theory, while not totally implausible,
does not quite
fit with the messianic ambitions of the president and apocalyptic
fears of
Vice-Presi-dent Dick Cheney.
Other cynics maintain that the abandonment of the Iraq goals of
four years ago,
and even the more restrained goals of 2006, represents the slow
revelation of the
real objective: securing Iraq's oilfields to protect America's
economy. Again,
it is impossible to disprove this.
Some defenders of the indefinite occupation argue proudly that
energy resources
are a good and fundamental reason to hang in. But it is a little
too mundane for
a man of Bush's character. It doesn't quite have the frisson, the
bigness of
Bush's signature goals.
My sense is that the point of the war in Iraq, in the presidents
mind, is an
attempt to quash any and all Islamist tendencies with American
military power.
The enemy is the right one, but, alas, he doesn't have enough
troops to remake an
entire country from scratch and the target of his attention --
Islamist ideology
-- turns out to be particularly resilient in the face of raw
military force.
These nuances are now, and always have been, lost on Bush. But
even if they were
not, he cannot switch gears. It is simply not in his DNA to absorb
the lessons
of the past few years and adjust -- radically -- to a new posture.
And so the real and present danger is that by digging in further
Bush will not
only keep providing Al-Qaeda with the oxygen that American
occupation of a Muslim
country provides, but will also find himself dragged, willingly or
unwillingly,
into a military confrontation with Iran. Already last week, Fox
News reported
serious planning for a missile attack on Irans nuclear
facilities next spring.
The vice-president is eager for another war to scramble what he
sees as a
weakened hand in Iraq. And the old policy of propping up Sunni
powers -- such as
Saudi Arabia -- against Shi'ite Iranian influence is slowly
becoming the default
American posture again.
The West, in other words, will not only be facing the extremist
fringe of
Al-Qaeda, but also taking on Shi'ite Islam in a sectarian regional
war. If you
wanted a policy that both multiplied and empowered your enemies, it
would be hard
to find a better one.
Maybe this won't happen. Maybe events in Iraq will turn in a more
hopeful
direction. I certainly hope so -- and in the fog of war it is very
hard to see
ahead confidently. But I see no sure reasons for solid optimism --
and much
evidence that beneath a small reduction in violence in the face of
30,000 more of
the best military in the world, the deeper tensions in Iraq remain
as lethal as ever.
Last Thursday, Americas most important Sunni ally -- Sheikh Abu
Risha -- was
murdered in Anbar. An oil deal collapsed in Baghdad. And Ramadan
began. Just
recall that fatal exchange in the Senate last week: "General, does
the [Iraq war]
make America safer?"
"I dont know, actually." I'm afraid I do.
---- Msg sent via CWNet -
http://www.cwnet.com/
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
