But the Bush/Cheney surge faces another equally insurmountable problem - it relies on a U.S. Army that they've virtually destroyed. As retired General William E. Odom has recently noted: "No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq." Rather than fix this problem, Bush's "recent 'surge' tactic has compelled the secretary of defense to extend Army tours to 15 months!" [Odom, "'Supporting the Troops' Means Withdrawing Them," Nieman Watchdog, 5 July 2007]
Given that U.S. military leaders, in their expert judgment, opposed Bush's "surge" from the outset, and given that highly regarded defense analysts found the "surge' to be strategically deficient, why did Bush go forward with it? Because, as Gen. Odom concluded: "The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years."
If correct about Bush's motive, then General Odom was certainly correct, when he observed: By "squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest" Bush surely has committed an impeachable "high crime." Were Bush or Cheney genuinely interested in supporting the troops, they would bring them home.
Fortunately, new pressure to bring the troops home has arisen from the ranks of Bush's own Republican Party, thanks to the speech given by Senator Richard Lugar on June 25, 2007. As the Indiana Republican noted, in a speech from the Senate floor: "Three factors - the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process - are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to engineer a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq in a reasonable time frame."
As the New York Times reported on July 9, 2007, thanks, in part, to Senator Lugar, "White House officials fear that the last pillars of political support among Senate Republicans for President Bush's Iraq strategy are collapsing around them." [David E. Sanger, "In White House, Debate Is Rising On Iraq Pullback," New York Times, July 9, 2007] Thus, the White House is debating the pros and cons of a gradual withdrawal.
The Bush administration immediately denied the Times' report. But, what's worse, neither Gen. Odom's interpretation nor the Times' report addressed the continuing influence of warmonger Cheney. (As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek recently reported, Bush commuted Libby's jail time because, "If he didn't, he would have caused a fracture with the vice president." [Isikoff, "Why Bush Gave Scooter Libby a Pass," Newsweek, July 16, 2007]
And neither have Gen. Odom nor the Times taken into consideration the recent report of columnist, Georgie Anne Geyer, who's found evidence that Bush "is more convinced than ever of his righteousness." [Geyer, "A spreading terror," Dallas Morning News, May 31, 2007] According to Geyer: "Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated 'I am the president!' He also made clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of 'our country's destiny.'" [Ibid]
Given that U.S, ground forces (and their weapons) have been nearly exhausted, the only plausible way for Bush to commit his successor to the war in Iraq would be to "double down" on his first disaster by attacking Iran's nuclear energy facilities, perhaps with nuclear weapons. As Robert D. Novak recently reported, Marine General Jack Sheehan refused to become "czar" of Iraq operations, because he believed that "hawks within the administration, including Vice President Cheney, remain more powerful than the pragmatists looking for an exit strategy in Iraq." [Robert D. Novak, "'Scouting' the Hill on Iraq," Washington Post, July 9, 2007]
In addition, we have Seymour Hersh's expert opinion, recently expressed to an audience at the Campus Progress National Student Conference, that "George Bush's and Dick Cheney's wet dream is hitting Iran." Finally, ask yourself: How did Bush and Cheney respond to rebukes of the November 2006 elections and the Iraq Study Group report? By escalating the war in Iraq!
More to the point, such an attack probably would bring Iraq's holocaust to the entire Middle East, thereby binding Bush's successor to "our country's destiny." As it is, Turkey already has massed 140,000 soldiers on its border with northern Iraq and al Qaeda in Iraq already has threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting the Shiites in Iraq.
Thus the question: Given the probable defection by key Senate Republicans, can the feckless (and thus desperate) Democrats that American voters placed in a legislative majority last November limit or end America's war in Iraq before Bush and Cheney expand it into Iran? Don't count on it.
Instead, recall the words of a high level Bush adviser to Ron Suskind: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Which is why Americans must insist upon immediate impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney and, then, President Bush. Simply put: "The World Can't Wait!"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
