January 14, 2007
|The "Surge" — Buying Time With A Hoax||Iran|
Conservative Paul Craig Roberts points out that administration claims that Iran is backing the Iraq insurgency are dubious at best, given that Iran is Shi'ite and the insurgents are mostly Sunnis. Excerpts:
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. [...]
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." [...]
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 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.
Hitler portrayed Germany's attacks as acts of self-defense. Czechoslovakia was a dagger pointed at the heart of the Reich, and so on. It's a formula that seldom fails. Most people are basically decent, and they don't want to believe their own country is engaged in naked aggression. Even when it's obvious.
I agree with most of this, but I must take issue with that last paragraph. Muslim extremists talk all the time about trying to destroy the western way of life. Also, all 3 of those gov'ts are on record with wanting to destroy the entire state of Isreal, not just its way of life. I can see how Isreal would think these countries are a direct threat to their survival right now, but they have nothing to do with our survival, which will be fine (and much better) without waging a non-winnable war in the middle east.
Sadly, while support for more troops in Iraq is low, the support for a wider war in the middle east to "prevent WMD and nuclear capabilities" could be easily sold here, whether or not it's true. Thankfully the 1 thing preventing an escalation is our lack of troops and Iran would have to drop a nuke on Isreal to get enough popular support for a draft...
Posted by: JW at January 15, 2007 07:49 AM