| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: Bush's tough tactics are a 'declaration of war' on Iran |
| Bush's tough tactics are a 'declaration of war' on Iran
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2145136.ece
Published: 12 January 2007
American forces stormed Iranian government offices in northern Iraq, hours after President George Bush issued a warning to Tehran that was described as a "declaration of war".
The soldiers detained six people, including diplomats, according to the Iranians, and seized documents and computers in the pre-dawn raid which was condemned by Iran. A leading UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said the incident was an "extreme provocation". Dr Ansari said that Mr Bush's speech on future Iraq strategy amounted to "a declaration of war" on Iran.
"The risk is a wider war. Because of the underlying tensions, we are transferring from a 'cold war' into a 'hot war'," he said.
In his speech, the President accused Iran and Syria of providing material support for attacks on US troops, and vowed to stop the "flow of support" from across the border. "We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," he said.
Dr Ansari argued that the Bush administration had decided to confront Iran at a time when public opinion has been focused on the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. "There's been a shift of emphasis without anyone noticing," he said.
"Moderate" Sunni Arab states who feel threatened by the rise of Shia Iran, thanks to its influence in Iraq and its refusal to curb its nuclear programme, could be expected to back the Bush approach, he said. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is due to visit Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia this week.
Until now, the Bush administration had been content to deal with the perceived Iranian threat diplomatically. The United Nations adopted sanctions against Tehran on 23 December. However, the economic measures adopted by the UN have failed to convince Iran to halt its uranium-enrichment programme which could lead to production of a nuclear weapon. The US is calling on allied states to adopt tougher unilateral sanctions.
President Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon to replace General John Abizaid as head of Central Command for Iraq and Afghanistan last week in a sign that change could be afoot. This week, Mr Bush ordered a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, along with its support ships, which could be used to contain Iran.
The US Treasury named Iran's Bank Sepah as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction on Tuesday, banned US companies or citizens from doing business with it and blocked any of its assets that come under American jurisdiction.
But if the US is preparing to confront Iran militarily - which some top military officials in Israel are reportedly recommending - the Bush administration will find itself involved in conflicts on four fronts.
In Somalia, US special forces have been pounding suspected al-Qa'ida suspects since early on Monday, in a continuing operation that risks pulling the Americans back into a conflict in a failed state. US forces are also active in southern Afghanistan in the hunt for the al-Qa'ida leader, Osama bin Laden, and his top associates. Al-Qa'ida has reactivated its Taliban allies who have become bolder in their attacks on coalition forces.
In Iraq, US troops are losing soldiers on an almost daily basis to the bombs of Sunni and Shia insurgents. The Shia-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was warned by Ms Rice yesterday that his days were numbered unless he was able to take on Shia militias who are his allies in government.
Ms Rice followed up President Bush's tough words on Iran by saying: "The President made very clear last night that we know Iran is engaged in activities endangering our troops... and that we're going to pursue those who may be involved in those activities."
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, protested against the raid by US forces in Arbil, saying on Iranian state-run radio that it targeted a "diplomatic mission" since the "presence of Iranian staffers in Irbil was legal".
Ironically, Iran had been contained by Saddam Hussein, until his overthrow by the Americans in 2003. Obsessed by a threat from "Persian hordes", Saddam maintained ambiguity about his weapons of mass destruction so Iran would believe that it had reason to fear its western neighbour. So have the Americans made a strategic mistake by refusing to engage with Iran? "There's no doubt that nothing good will come of this," said Dr Ansari.
------------------------------------------------------
Bush's ace up his sleeve (Attack Iran!):
Posted: January 12, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53736
Wednesday night, George Bush seemed to play his last card in the Iraq war. It was not impressive. Consider:
First, he warned of the awful consequences of a U.S. defeat: "Radical Islamic extremism would grow ... in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons."
Bush then warned of the awful consequences of the Baker commission proposal to "announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces." "(T)o step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."
Twin those two warnings, and what is Bush saying?
His critics favor a course in Iraq that risks the fall of Baghdad, Iraq torn apart, slaughter of our friends, a surge in Islamic terror, the toppling of moderate Arab states, chaos in the Gulf, billions in oil revenue flowing to al-Qaida killers and a nuclear Iran.
And, how do we avert so monstrous a calamity?
A "surge" of 21,500 troops, 15 percent of the U.S. forces already in Iraq, to pacify the capital. And even that troop commitment is "not open-ended."
This is just not credible. For, if the situation is as dire as Bush says and the potential disaster as horrific as he describes, the logical course would be to treble the number of troops in Iraq and commit to fight indefinitely.
How does one explain the disconnect? Is Bush absurdly exaggerating the consequences of a pullout?
No. U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East are indeed at risk because of the hubristic folly of our political elite in putting them there, when they launched this insane war.
But Bush cannot now commit to fight to victory, because the war is lost in the United States. Two-thirds of the American people are unwilling to make the sacrifices to save Iraq. Though they do not want a defeat and may not realize the consequences of a defeat, they are willing to risk a defeat, rather than continue to read of American kids being IED'd to death and dismemberment in Baghdad and Anbar. The people want out and are saying to hell with the consequences.
That is the political realty that underlies the president's modest proposal of a "surge" to avert what he warns is a strategic disaster.
But Bush has to know the card he played is not going to save the pot into which he has plunged his legacy, the credibility of his country and America's standing as a superpower.
Which leads me to believe Bush has yet another card to play, an ace up his sleeve. What might that be?
Midway through his speech, almost as an aside, Bush made a pointed accusation at and issued a direct threat to – Tehran.
To defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq and stabilize "the region in the face of extremist challenge," Bush interjected, "begins with addressing Iran and Syria."
"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. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Now, any networks providing "advanced weaponry and training" to jihadists and insurgents are outside Iraq. Otherwise, they would have been neutralized by air strikes already.
So, where are they? Answer: inside Syria and Iran. And Bush says we are going to "seek out and destroy" these networks.
Which suggests to this writer that, while the "surge" is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation – widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran.
"I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region," said Bush. "We will deploy ... Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."
But there is no need for more carrier-based fighter-bombers in Iraq. And the insurgents have no missiles against which anyone would need Patriot missiles to defend. You only need Patriots if your target country has missiles with which to retaliate against you.
What Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian "networks" are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.
And should this scenario play out, what would Hillary, Biden, Kerry, McCain, Giuliani, and even Pelosi and Obama do? Hail Bush as a Churchill. At first.
And Bush would have another legacy besides a lost war in Iraq. Like Menachem Begin, only big-time, he would have his own Osirak.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush's Iraq Plan - Goading Iran into War (for Israel):
Analysis by Trita Parsi*
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36152
WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (IPS) - President George W. Bush's address on Iraq Wednesday night was less about Iraq than about its eastern neighbour, Iran. There was little new about the U.S.'s strategy in Iraq, but on Iran, the president spelled out a plan that appears to be aimed at goading Iran into war with the U.S.
AIPAC and NeoCon Policy
on bombing Iran for Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rf16XjbOUs
AIPAC Trying to Get US to Attack Iran for Israel :
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
Bush's Rush to Armageddon:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/09/bush-s-rush-to-armageddon.php
The JINSA/PNAC Neocons of AEI want to expand the war (quagmire) for Israel in Iraq to Iran and Syria in accordance with the 'A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda as discussed by esteemed US intelligence author/writer James Bamford via the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php
Patrick Buchanan: Who is Planning Our Next War (for Israel)?:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/09/pat-buchanan-who-is-planning-our-next-war.php
Coming War with Iran as discussed by Pat Buchanan, Keith Olbermann and Zbigniew Brzezinski:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/12/coming-war-with-iran-as-discussed-by-pat-buchanan-keith-olb.php
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice: Bush OK'd raids on Iranians
President OK’d operations months ago, secretary of state tells paper
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:19 p.m. PT Jan 12, 2007
WASHINGTON - An order from President Bush authorized a series of U.S. raids against Iranians in Iraq as part of a broad military offensive, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.
Bush issued the order several months ago, Rice told The New York Times as she prepared to visit the Middle East. She said the president acted “after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity” among Iranians in Iraq “and increasing lethality in what they were producing.”
Five Iranians were detained by U.S.-led forces this week after a raid on an Iranian government liaison office in northern Iraq, a move that has frayed even further the relations between the two countries. The United States accuses Iran of helping provide roadside bombs that have killed American troops in Iraq, and a bitter standoff already exists over Tehran’s nuclear program.
‘Force protection mission’
Rice, according to a story for the Saturday print editions of the Times, described the military effort against Iranians in Iraq as a defensive “force protection mission.” Concerns that Iran was trying to further destabilize the country also motivated the raids, she told the newspaper.
“We think they are providing help to the militias as well, and maybe even the more violent element of these militias,” she said.
On Friday, U.S. officials said there was no immediate plan to strike targets in Iran, but they also wouldn’t rule out military action. Their comments came after Bush vowed in a prime-time address to the nation to go after Iranian terrorist networks feeding the insurgency in Iraq.
Bush’s remarks Wednesday in a speech announcing his plan to boost U.S. forces in Iraq prompted questions from members of Congress about whether the U.S. is considering attacks on Iranian territory. Administration officials have long refused to rule out any options against Iran but said military action would be a last resort.
Pentagon says no plans for attack on Iran
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Friday told the Senate Armed Services Committee that while U.S. forces are trying to prevent Iran and Syria from disrupting U.S. forces in Iraq, there were no immediate plans for an attack.
“We believe that we can interrupt these networks that are providing support through actions inside the territory of Iraq, that there is no need to attack targets in Iran itself,” Gates told the panel, adding that he continues to believe that “any kind of military action inside Iran itself, that would be a very last resort.”
Pace said special operations forces are continually battling insurgents who are getting aid from Iran.
“I think one of the reasons you keep hearing about Iran is because we keep finding their stuff in Iraq,” Pace said.
‘Diplomacy on the back-burner’?
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote to Bush on Thursday asking for clarifications on the administration’s stance toward attacking Iran. Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., raised the issue at a hearing Friday.
“The president seems to have placed diplomacy on the back-burner again,” Byrd said.
In his speech Wednesday, Bush chastised Iran and Syria for not blocking terrorists at their borders with Iraq. He specifically blamed Iran for providing material support for attacks on American troops.
“We will disrupt the attacks on our forces,” Bush said. “We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
On Friday, White House spokesman Tony Snow called the suggestion that war plans were under way an “urban legend.”
“What the president was talking about is defending American forces within Iraq, and also doing what we can to disrupt networks that might be trying to convey weapons or fighters into battle theaters within Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis,” Snow said.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16603072/
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:33 pm; edited 5 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: Detained Iranians had Iraq approval |
| January 10, 2007
Iran and Syria in the Crosshairs
The War Widens
http://www.counterpunch.org/leys01112007.html
By JEFF LEYS
Did President Bush this evening just signal that the U.S. is preparing to expand the war in the Middle East to include Syria and Iran?
While the Iraq Study Group advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria, President Bush is evidently continuing to walk down the road of military engagement.
The elements are falling into place for an expansion of the war:
* Deployment of Patriot air missile defense systems to countries in the Middle East.
* Deployment of an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf.
* Naming a new Commander of the Central Command who is an Admiral with experience in air and naval warfare to replace a General.
* Sharing of intelligence for potential cruise missile targets between Israel and the U.S.
* Sharing of intelligence with other countries in the region.
* Creation of the justification for an attack against Iran and / or Syria-the emphasis upon those countries' alleged roles in attacks against U.S. armed forces in Iraq.
* At any point in time after February 21, the UN Security Council will revisit Iran's nuclear program and potential further action against Iran under terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1737.
Consider the following comments from President Bush last evening:
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity-and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. 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. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
"We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing-and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."
Does this mean that President Bush is preparing to launch a military strike against Iran and / or Syria? Two other developments-in August 2006 and just last week-are potentially ominous in this regard.
Last summer, during Israel's invasion of Lebanon, Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space reported that: "Multiple military sources have told the Global Network that Pentagon personnel responsible for selecting cruise missile first strike attacks have been sent to Israel. This indicates that U.S. and Israeli military strategists are now likely meeting to plan a joint attack on Syria and / or Iran."
Last week, on January 5, President Bush replaced General Abizaid as Commander of the Central Command (CENTCOM), the command body for U.S. armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. The replacement, Admiral Richard Fallon, was the Commander of Pacific Command (Pacom). This was a lateral move-not a promotion for Admiral Fallon.
Michael Klare writes in The Nation (January 10, 2007, on-line version):
"if you're thinking instead of using force against Iran and / or Syria, then Admiral Fallon is exactly the man you'd want at CENTCOM.
"Why? Because combined air and naval operations are his forté. Fallon began his combat career as a Navy combat flyer in Vietnam, and he served with carrier-based forces for twenty-four years after that. He commanded a carrier battle wing during the first Gulf War in 1991 and led the naval group supporting NATO operations during the Bosnia conflict four years later. More recently, Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault--and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind."
So the challenge is now set before us once again. In 2002 and 2003 it was to stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now the challenge is to stop the expansion of the war in and occupation of Iraq into a full blown regional war-indeed, into a full blown world war, the first world war initiated by a democracy.
Let us not wilt away from the challenge before us. At a minimum, demand that the powers-that-be in Congress act to stop an expansion of the war to Syria and Iran-and to end the war in and occupation of Iraq by voting against any additional funds for the war. Call the Congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your Representative and Senators office. Tell your Rep and Senators that you expect them to vote against an expansion of the war to Iran and / or Syria and to vote against any additional funds for the war in Iraq.
Organize and engage in nonviolent protest against an expansion of the war to Syria and / or Iran. Prepare for nonviolent civil disobedience / civil resistance to disrupt business as usual to prevent an expansion of the war. Join with the Occupation Project campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience to end funding for the war in and occupation of Iraq.
Whatever nonviolent means you choose to employ-act today.
Jeff Leys is Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. He can be reached via email, jeffleys@vcnv.org | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject: |
| Donald Jones (who is a retired military analyst) responded with the following:
The Iranians have 250,000 regulars, 500,000 reserves, and 5,000,000 militia. All of them are Shiites. Who could be stupid enough to engage that having only 480,000 regulars and 850,000 reserve/Guard plus 180,000 marines? Any failure will be blamed on the military commanders by Bush and his LZNP pals. A US army division of 16,000 requires 24,000 more in support. There are 3,700 riflemen in one US division of 16,000 end strength. Bush would have to be insane to attack Iran . Iran can send 250,000 men into Iraq to attack our 148,000 men. At least 60,000 Shiites in Iraq would support the Iranians. This is Custer’s last stand writ very large.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look what the Jewish JINSA/PNAC Neocon Richard Perle (who was a primary architect of the war for Israel in Iraq which will be spreading to Iran and Syria before long in accordance with his 'A Clean Break' agenda) had to say about our children 'singing songs' in the following article by Kurt Nimmo:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo01102003.html
Read about the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda via the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php
Then take a look at what a co-author (Wurmser who is working for Cheney) of the 'A Clean Break' document mentioned from Seymour Hersh's article below:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1120-20.htm
In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik (who is associated with JINSA as well), a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. “Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office,” he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives “need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes.”
The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President’s staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser “believes that, so far, there’s been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq,” the consultant said. But, unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney’s office “want to end the regime,” the consultant said. “They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran.”
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:56 am; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:15 am Post subject: |
| To: "rbleier"
From: "Ronald"
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:54:28 -0500
Subject: *P.C. Roberts: Bush: We must attack Iran & Syria
Now why didn't I think of that dept.
Among other things Paul Craig Roberts points out that the Iraqi insurgency is largely Sunni and the Iranians are Shi'ite and are hardly likely to be supplying arms to Sunnis to attack Shi'ites.
Roberts writes:
Does any intelligent person really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to arm Iraqi Sunnis who are killing Iraqi Shi'ites allied with Iran? Does anyone really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to provide sanctuary for Iraqi Sunnis?
Of course, Syria is Sunni (75%) but Bush's primary target is Iran. Now this is something everyone can do: call their representatives and ask them if it makes sense that Iran is funding the Sunni insurgency. If we can manage to get a reporter to ask Tony Snow that question, or to get some mention of this anomaly in the NYT, or CNN, or get a representative to ask this question at a hearing... Would Paul Krugman dare point this out?
Ok, guys and gals, that's our assignment.
Item: This is a very special moment in the history of the Bush administration. Bush's speech backfired to the extent that no one in the administration predicted. (With hindsight it's easy to see that the country at this late stage would not be likely to cheer on more of the same: and only a small portion of the Zionists, the New York money people as potential candidate Wesley Clark soon regretted he said, are in favor of extending the war to Iran and Syria.
The Bush administration is currently rocked and it's actually possible that if Biden (who would have expected?!) and Kennedy can somehow garner sufficient support, we could actually stop Bush from attacking Iran -- which has long been their game plan for this portion of their time in office. It'd be nice to think that exposing the Sunni-- Shia divide could help.
Item: Following the Roberts piece is Tony Snow denying that Bush is planning to attack Iran. Or is it one of those non-denial denials. See what you think. (Thanks to Laura Rozen.)
Ronald
http://bleiersblog.blogspot.com
http://desip.igc.org
***
Counterpunch
January 12 / 14, 2007
Surge and Mirrors
What Bush Really Said
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01122007.html
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.
The Iraq insurgency is Sunni. Iran is Shi'ite. If Iran is supporting anyone in Iraq it is the Shi'ites, who have not been part of the insurgency. Indeed, the Sunni and Shi'ites are engaged in a civil war within Iraq.
Does any intelligent person really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to arm Iraqi Sunnis who are killing Iraqi Shi'ites allied with Iran? Does anyone really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to provide sanctuary for Iraqi Sunnis?
Bush can tell blatant propagandistic lies, because Congress and the American people don't know enough facts to realize the absurdity of Bush's assertions.
Why is Bush telling these lies? Here is the answer: Bush says, "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
In those words, Bush states perfectly clearly that victory in Iraq requires US forces to attack Iran and Syria. Moreover, Bush says, "We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region."
What do two US aircraft carrier attack groups in the Persian Gulf have to do with a guerilla ground war in Iraq?
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?
It is extraordinary that anyone can listen to this blatant declaration of US aggression in the Middle East without demanding Bush's immediate impeachment.
Republican US Senator Chuck Hagel declared Bush's plan to be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." In truth, it is far worse. It is naked aggression justified by transparent lies. No one has ever heard governments in Iraq, Syria, or Iran declare "their intention to destroy our way of life." To the contrary, it is the United States and Israel that are trying to destroy the Muslim way of life.
The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@ yahoo.com
from Laura Rozen's
warandpiece. com
January 12, 2007
Tony Snow:
Also, I want to address kind of a rumor, an urban legend that's going around -- and it comes from language in the President's Wednesday night address to the nation, that in talking about Iran and Syria, that he was trying to prepare the way for war with either country and that there are war preparations underway: There are not. What the President was talking about is defending American forces within Iraq and also doing what we can to disrupt networks that might be trying to convey weapons or fighters into battle theaters within Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis.
As regards Iran, the United States is using diplomatic measures right now to address concerns -- including Iran's nuclear program. We've been working with the United Nations Security Council, recently got a chapter seven resolution. So this is something that is very important to push back, because I know there's been a lot of speculation about it. Let me just try to put that to rest once and for all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:43 am; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:50 am Post subject: |
| Scroll down to the bold type in the body of the article below!:
January 12, 2007
Bush's Last Stand
The War Party is down, but not out
by Justin Raimondo
Delivered in a near monotone, and written by someone with a tin ear, the president's much-anticipated speech on the "new way forward" in Iraq has succeeded only in reinforcing the impression that he is deaf, dumb, and blind to reason when it comes to Iraq. As Republicans peel off in their support for his failed policies, and Democrats pile on, the president's utter indifference to the results of the recent election – indeed, that stunning rejection seems to have emboldened him – have led many to speculate that he is, perhaps, a bit unhinged. Surely Republican party chieftains, contemplating the next election, must be questioning his sanity, albeit not out loud.
That is not quite fair, although it is quite understandable: after all, who wouldn't begin to wonder about the sanity of a chief executive who can seemingly ignore the catastrophic consequences of a policy that embodies his legacy?
I say "seemingly" because this apparent evasion is only an illusion: he is, in fact, well aware that his policies have failed, so far, to achieve his announced goals. After giving us the party line about how wonderful the "purple fingers" election was, how we're fighting them in Baghdad so we don't have to fight them in Biloxi, and how freedom is (or was) on the march in Iraq, he averred:
"But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. al-Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shi'ite Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shi'ite population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shi'ite elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today."
Not quite. It is untrue that the Shi'ite death squads were unleashed only "in retaliation" for the depredations of their Sunni archrivals – they started their deadly work early on, and have been operating full blast ever since the Americans decided to tilt in their direction.
While the Mahdi Army of Moqtada Sadr is a relatively recent phenomenon, the existence of Shi'ite death squads predated the attack on the Golden Mosque: the Badr Brigade, now re-dubbed the Badr Organization – the armed militia of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) – was founded in Tehran in the 1980s. It is the military wing of SCIRI, the biggest political party in Iraq, and the major winner of the "purple finger" elections that Bush hails as a "stunning achievement." The Badr Boyz are the biggest, most organized, best-financed death squad in the country: they are up to their turbans in sectarian killings, and have infiltrated the Interior Ministry on such a large scale that they virtually control the national police and other security branches. The Iraqi elections, far from being a countervailing influence to the death squads, served to empower them.
According to our president, who is clearly playing the Shi'ite card for all it's worth, the sectarian strife that threatens to upend Iraq's glorious "democracy" is entirely the fault of the Sunnis. Never mind that the Shi'ite's desire for revenge is motivated by events that occurred during the reign of Saddam, and was just waiting to be unleashed by the "liberation." What we liberated, it turns out, is a Pandora's box of religious and ethnic hatreds that are now culminating in a Hobbesian war of all against all.
Yet we dare not withdraw, says the Prez:
"The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people."
Islamic extremists of every sectarian orientation gained in strength and new recruits the moment we set foot in Iraq, and, as Michael Scheuer pointed out at the very outset of his best-selling Imperial Hubris:
"As I complete this book, U.S., British, and other coalition forces are trying to govern apparently ungovernable postwar states in Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously fighting growing Islamist insurgencies in each – a state of affairs our leaders call victory. In conducting these activities, and the conventional military campaigns preceding them, U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."
As for creating chaos in the region, the U.S. military presence is doing that all by itself. Yet Pat Buchanan, someone I have enormous respect for, seems to have been particularly impressed by this argument. Commenting on the speech on MSNBC, where he is a regular these days, Pat went so far as to say that, on this basis, if he were a sitting Senator, he would vote "aye" on the surge.
Pat is motivated by a desire to avert a real disaster for American interests in the region, and sees this as "Bush's last chance" to undo what he has wrought. But there are no do-overs when it comes to war. Bad policies have bad consequences. As ye reap, so shall ye sow. It's a principle ordained by heaven, and fully applicable to everyone on earth – Americans included.
The war both Pat and I opposed is having exactly the effect we envisioned. The idea that a "surge" of some 20,000 troops will do anything but further irritate and inflame this open wound is a fantasy, and hardly a patriotic one. For it delays the necessity of looking reality square in the face, and – worse – prevents the public and the policymaking elites from absorbing the vital lessons of this radical misadventure: that interventionism leads to exactly the opposite of its stated intentions, and the business of Empire is a losing proposition.
What's interesting, however, about this part of the speech is that Bush says he fears the creation of a terrorist state – doubtless run by Sunnis – that would "use oil revenues" to make trouble for the U.S. Perhaps by giving the proceeds to Osama bin Laden. It's a fantasy founded on a fallacy: that the Sunni minority will ever again take power in a unified Iraq. What's more likely is the consolidation of a sectarian Shi'ite dictatorship, one that will prove its lack of "radicalism" by allowing the U.S. to go after Moqtada and his Mahdi Army.
The administration, having abandoned the "moderate" secular Sunnis, represented by Iyad Allawi (rememberhim?), is now taking up the Shi'ite cause with a vengeance. This new turn is carefully clothed in the white raiment of non-sectarianism, but if I were a Sunni living in Iraq – and particularly in Baghdad – I would run for the exits while there's still time. As Bush puts it:
"Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it. Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have."
After all, why shouldn't we go storming into private homes, shoot first, and ask questions later, just like we did in Haditha? All those bothersome restrictions – e.g. morality, law, and everything that elevates us above the jungle floor – really put a crimp in our sails. But no more! We've only killed – according to some estimates – between 50,000 and 650,000 Iraqis. Let's start ramping those numbers up: then the "metrics" so beloved by Rummy will begin to chart an uptick in our fortunes.
Bush is giving the signal for the Shi'ite death squads – in which our own troops will be "embedded" – to redouble their dirty work: it's the "El Salvador option" made manifest. And all in the name of fighting sectarian violence! That's the beauty of it. Later on in his peroration, Bush avers that "even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue. And we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties." Given the objective consequences of his policies, what he really meant was especially if our strategy works exactly as planned.
I won't go into all the ominous aspects of the speech here, for fear of elongating this column unto infinity. However, there is one aspect of all this that strikes a particularly dark note:
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. 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. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
The last sentence ought to give us pause, because it underscores the real danger of remaining in Iraq one day longer, never mind four to six months or a year. Bush clearly sees the struggle in regional terms, and seeks to expand the conflict beyond Iraq's borders. That has always been the point of our intervention in Iraq: to establish a launching pad for the "liberation" of the Middle East.
Why else are U.S. soldiers storming the Iranian consulate in Irbil, and taking six consular personnel hostage – clearly an act of war?
This is the answer to Buchanan's argument that the national interest somehow dictates support for the "surge." The mistake he makes is looking at the war in Iraq in isolation: in invading and occupying Iraq, we set off a chain reaction that gets harder to stop as time goes by. Elsewhere he warns against the dangers of getting embroiled in a war with Iran, and/or an invasion of Syria, at the behest of the Israelis. Yet how does he imagine this will come about? We are a border incident away from a regional conflagration.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the likelier we are to get sucked into an Iranian quagmire that will dwarf our present predicament by several orders of magnitude. I would bank on a Cambodia-style incursion, a la Richard Nixon – a maneuver that, executed in the volatile Middle East, is likely to cause a seismic explosion that would reverberate across the globe with tremendous force. That's why we don't need a "surge" – and every moment we delay in getting out of Iraq takes us closer to the edge of the abyss.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
I did an interview with the remarkable Scott Horton, of Antiwar.com Radio, this [Thursday] morning. Scott was, as usual, full of perceptive questions and asides, whereas I – it was eight in the morning – was bleary with sleep. But it’s worth listening to: go here to do so.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detained Iranians had Iraq approval
By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer
The Iraqi foreign minister said Friday that the five Iranians detained by U.S.-led forces in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate.
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, also said U.S. forces tried to seize more people at the airport in Irbil, 220 miles north of Baghdad, prompting a confrontation with Kurdish troops guarding the facility that was resolved without casualties.
In Washington, a Pentagon official said after troops detained the people in the first building, they learned another person may have escaped and fled to the airport.
An American team went to the airport, where they "surprised" Kurdish forces, who apparently had not been informed they were coming, said the Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about the incident on the record.
"No shots were fired, no one was injured, it was just a tense situation," said the official.
The arrests drew condemnation from local Kurdish authorities, who protested that they were not informed in advance, and have raised fears that tensions between Iran and the United States were hurting Iraq's interests.
"We don't want Iraq to be a battleground for settling scores with other countries," Zebari told CNN later in an interview.
Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's office, meanwhile, rejected President Bush's plans to send 21,500 more American troops to Iraq as part of a wide-ranging new effort to curb rampant sectarian attacks.
"We reject Bush's new strategy and we think it will fail," said Abdul-Razzaq al-Nidawi, a senior official in al-Sadr's office in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.
He said Iraq's problems were due to the presence of U.S. troops and called for their withdrawal.
"We call upon the American people to oppose sending more of their sons to Iraq so that they will not be flown back in coffins," he said.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last weekend announced his government would implement a new security plan for Baghdad, including neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweeps by Iraqi forces backed by U.S. troops. Similar efforts have failed in the past because of the Shiite-dominated government's resistance to cracking down on militias such as the Mahdi Army, which is loyal to al-Sadr.
The Bush proposal calls for up to 12,000 additional Iraqi troops to secure Baghdad, which has been beset by sectarian violence, much of blamed on militias. On Friday, suspected Shiite militiamen attacked a Sunni mosque in a religiously mixed neighborhood, prompting clashes that wounded two guards, as weekly services were ending, police said.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh said Friday that the Iraqi government recognized that the country was in a precarious position.
"We all have to recognize that the situation in Iraq is serious, it's dangerous, and this dynamics of violence cannot be sustained," he said in an interview with National Public Radio. "It must be the political will by us to do it."
The raids in Irbil came as U.S. officials repeated long-standing accusations that Iran is encouraging the violence in Iraq by supplying money and weapons.
The Iranians were detained Thursday as multinational forces entered the building overnight and confiscated computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
Six people suspected of being involved in attacks against Iraqi civilians and military forces were initially detained, the U.S. military said in a statement. One was later released. The statement did not identify the nationalities of the suspects.
Iraqi and Iranian officials initially said the Iranian office raided in Irbil was a diplomatic mission, which raised questions about whether those detained had diplomatic immunity. But Zebari told The Associated Press that the Iranians worked at a "liaison office" that was in the process of becoming a consulate.
"This office is not new and has been there for more than 10 years," he said. "We are now in the process of changing these offices to consulates and ... we will open consulates in Iran."
Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman who initially said it was a diplomatic mission, later changed the description to an "office of relations" and said it was waiting for permission to operate as a consulate.
The U.S. Embassy also said it was assured the building was not a consulate.
The regional Kurdish government condemned the arrest of the Iranians and called for their release. Many Kurds, including Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, have close ties to Iran. Last month, U.S. troops detained at least two Iranians and released two others who had diplomatic immunity. Two of those detained were visiting as guests of Talabani, his spokesman said.
Zebari also said American forces went to the Irbil airport on Thursday but did not identify themselves or give advance notice to local authorities.
"No party had knowledge of this matter and that is why the force protecting the airport tried to interfere and find out who they were and what they were doing," he said.
The concerns expressed by Kurdish authorities, who have been among the staunchest supporters of U.S. efforts in Iraq, reflected the difficulties they face in trying to maintain close ties with both Iran and the U.S.
In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors and "demanded an explanation" about the Irbil incident. Switzerland represents American interests in Iran.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Thursday that the detained Iranians were being questioned. The U.S. Embassy declined to give an update on their status on Friday.
___
Associated Press writer Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
