No need to explain their assessment either time, but NYT op-ed page editor said this on July 31, 2005: The op-ed page (where the above review was published) is "a venue for people with a wide range of perspectives, experiences and talents (to provide) a lively page of clashing opinions, one where as many people as possible have the opportunity to make the best arguments they can." As long as they don't conflict with official state policy, offend Times advertisers or potential ones, acknowledge Iran's decisive role in ending the recent Basra fighting, or mention the (latest) 2007 (US) National Intelligence Estimate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 - even though it's likely one never existed and doesn't now.
With Iraq still raging and hawkishness over Iran heating up, it's disquieting to think what's coming, and it's got Middle East leaders uneasy. Not about Iran, about a rogue administration with over eight months left to incinerate the region in a mushroom-shaped cloud and no hesitation about doing it.
Enter the Generalissimo - Initials DP, Ambitions Outsized
Fallon is out, and, in late April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said David Petraeus is being nominated to replace him as Centcom commander. General Raymond Odierno (his former deputy) will replace his former boss as Iraq chief. New York Times reporter Thom Shanker said these "two commanders (are) most closely associated with President Bush's current strategy in Iraq," so are on board to pursue it and maybe up the stakes.
Besides being a Latin American expert, James Petras writes extensively on the Middle East and how the Israeli Lobby influences US policy. His 2006 book, "The Power of Israel in the United States," is must reading to understand it. Petras has a new article on Petraeus. It's incisive, scary, and unsparing in exposing the generalissimo's true character, failings, and ambitions.
Competence didn't make him Iraq commander last year. It came the same way he got each star. In the words of some of his peers - by brown-nosing his way to the top. It made him more than a general. He's a "brand," and it got him Time Magazine's 2007 runner-up slot for Person of the Year.
The media now shower him with praise for his stellar performance in an otherwise dismal war. So do politicians. McCain calls him "one of (our) greatest (ever) generals." Clinton says he's "an extraordinary leader and a wonderful advocate for our military." Obama was less effusive but said he supports his nomination as Centcom chief and added: "I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq....It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say." It would also hurt his presidential hopes as the right wing media would bash him mercilessly if he disparaged America's new war hero with very outsized ambitions and no shyness in pursuing them.
He got off to a flying start after being appointed to the top Iraq job last year. The White House spin machine took over and didn't let facts interfere with its praise. It described him as aggressive in nature, an innovative thinker on counterinsurgency warfare, a talisman, a white knight, a do-or-die competitive legend, and a man able to turn defeat into victory.
Others like Admiral Fallon had a different assessment, and Petras noted it in his article. Before his removal, he was openly contemptuous of a man who shamelessly supported Israel "in northern Iraq and the Bush 'Know Nothings' in charge of Iraq and Iran policy planning." It got him his April 16 promotion, and his week earlier Senate testimony sealed it. He was strikingly bellicose in blaming Iran for US troop deaths. That makes points any time on Capitol Hill, especially in an election year when rhetoric sells and whatever supports war and Israel does it best.
Petras adds that Petraeus had few competitors for the Centcom job because other top candidates won't stoop the way he does - shamelessly flacking for Israel, the bellicose Bush agenda, and what Petras calls "his slavish adherence to....confrontation with Iran. Blaming Iran for his failed military policies served a double purpose - it covered up his incompetence and it secured the support of" the Senate's most hawkish (independent) Democrat, Joe Lieberman.
It also served his outsized ambitions that may include a future run for the White House. His calculus seems to be - lie to Congress, hide his failures, blame Iran, support Israel and the Bush agenda unflinchingly, claim he turned Iraq around, say he'll do it in the region, and make him president and he'll fix everything.
He (nor the media) won't report how bad things are in Iraq or the toll on its people. They won't explain the "surge's" failure to make any progress on the ground. They won't reveal the weekly US troop death and injury count that's far higher than reported numbers. By one estimate, (including weekly Pentagon wounded updates), it tops 85,000 when the following categories are included:
-- "hostile" and "non-hostile" deaths, including from accidents and illness;
-- total numbers wounded; and
-- many thousands of later discovered casualties, mainly brain traumas from explosions.
Left out of the above figures are future illnesses and deaths from exposure to toxic substances like depleted uranium. It now saturates large areas of Iraq in the soil, air and drinking water. Also omitted is the vast psychological toll. For many, it causes permanent damage, and whole families become victims.
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
remember bertold brecht!! he knows what to sayat this point and time.
If there is a war and You don't go, that war will come to you.
crossroads come up 4 nov 08. Action respectively ommission of action,
needs to be decided now. We can go to the 3 or 4 prospective successors and challenge them now, if we can come up with a common denominator answer , fine , case closed, we do it now according to unopposed responses.
Lets examine the decision of E-day (EXIT one night all 170000 into safe grounds , so they cannot be blocked or abducted by falling below their critical mass) . This would be the day of truth for Mr Malaki.
If he complains we can say, he asked us to get out. He'd also be responsible for about 3 millon refugees.
What about Paul, Obama, Clinton , yes fine with them. McCain ,- yes , we
go to him and discuss it with him. Maybe he realizes , we cannot stay this course for multiple reasons ,main reasons we are out of BOTG , which is about as bad as if you lose a fleet or if you run out of amo. Another good reason not to tough iranian souverenity is the current inbalance in the arms race , the US Fleet has to stay out 400 NM iranian missile range.
On the other hand , if he's not ready (Mccain) for E-Day , we will wait
through very turbulent 6 month , to see if the Command goes to him or not.
Only a full powered war or none at all i would say. One of the two.Latter
would require war declaration by congress anyway .
Then 2 things : The training camp visible and known are the ones they don't care if they get hit , it is the prisoners and some Talibans
and Alqaida residuals insufficient loyal to Tehren anyway.
The Uranium Enrichment Centrifuges are in dublicates, multi location
undisclosed , if one gets hit they will continue on an other end anyway.
An ultimatum will give them the opportunity to post human shields .
It 's not 4 NOV yet and maybe RON PAUL may get more votes than McCain
and month after that unexpectedly he becomes convinced the war with iran is inevitable . This would be the case whe E-Day turns out to be a large disaster.
by
hlg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 79 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 8:40:24 AM
