OK, let's try to parse this one out. At his press conference last week, Bush hinted at a new flexibility on Iraq, at least with regard to tactics, but announced no new policies; in short, he merely changed the window dressing -- emerging with what E.J. Dionne and others accurately call "stay-the-course lite." So what was really going on?
I see several subtextual agendas in Bush's recent public pronouncements about Iraq:
First, Bush needed to give the impression, pre-election, that his hugely unpopular Iraq policy might possibly be changing in the immediate future. In other words, a snow job for still-reachable conservative Republicans who might want to vote for GOP candidates if only Bush would shift his direction with regard to Iraq.
Short sum-up: Bush isn't shifting. Check out these quotes from that press conference: "Our goals are unchanging. ... Absolutely, we're winning...and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done. ... We have a plan for victory." In short, there will be no real policy shift pre-election and probably not any major shift after November 7 either. Those permanent military bases are there for a reason.
WHO "LOST" IRAQ AND WHO WILL BE BLAMED?
Second, in the likelihood that Iraq totally degenerates and America has to depart quickly, Bush is preparing the 2008 ground for the "who-lost-Iraq?" blame game. It isn't, can't be, the Bush Administration, since their policy, they would have us all believe, is the correct one. So it must be someone else's fault. Here are some likely scapegoats:
The Iraqis. The Maliki government, for good reason, senses that it's being set up to take the fall. The Bush Administration reasoning will be: Well, we gave them the benchmarks and they couldn't meet them, so it's their fault. There will be no admission that the American benchmarks are based on a flawed grasp of what's really happening on the ground in Iraq.
If Maliki gets too far out of line, or continues to prove his ineffectiveness, the CheneyBush Administration could well encourage a military coup to topple him, reminiscent of how the U.S. treated its South Vietnamese government allies in the 1960s and early-'70s. (Bush said of Maliki last week: "We're with him, so long as he continues to make tough decisions," i.e., continues to make decisions in line with U.S. policy.)
When client governments fail to do the U.S. bidding or are unable to do so, the usual practice is to install a more amenable puppet into place. If nothing works and you have to exit the country, you've got one of your handy scapegoats already on the chopping block.
The American People. Another dastardly group that can be blamed for "losing Iraq" is the Democratic Party and, in a broader sense, the American people. The media will be included in this category of scapegoats, since they dared to report bad news of what was happening on the ground in Iraq. Both the Democrats and the media had the temerity to ask embarrassing questions about the wreck that is Bush's war policy, therefore -- and here comes the spin -- they "didn't support the troops" and thus undercut civilian support for the "war on terrorism." In short, "unpatriotic" elements helped the U.S. "lose" Iraq (as if we ever "owned" it) and thus made America less secure. It's "who lost China?" all over again.
The Military. Another scapegoat being groomed for a starring role: the U.S. military. Bush and Rumsfeld claim they always defer to the generals on the ground, though in private they make sure to punish any military officers who venture beyond BushCheneyRumsfeld policy. So it will be "the generals" who got the strategy all wrong, never the occupants of the White House who gave them their marching orders and set the simplistic parameters under which they were forced to work.
In other news:
IRAN WAITING IN THE WINGS
Unless some extraordinary surprise occurs in the days remaining before the November 7 balloting, it seems that the U.S. will not be bombing Iran's fledgling nuclear-research labs. There are no firm indications of such an immediate intent.
But such action might well take place between the election and when the new Congress is sworn-in in late-January of 2007. If the GOP manages to hang on to power in the House and/or Senate, CheneyBush may decide that have a new "mandate," and thus have more free rein to attack Iran.
If the Democrats humiliate the rightwing Republicans and take over the House and/or the Senate, CheneyBush may decide to attack Iran both for geopolitical reasons, to be sure, but also because such a war would definitely divert public attention away from the election results and, the Administration hopes, would help rally the public around the "commander-in-chief" for the final two years of his tenure. (Meanwhile, word leaked from Iran last week that it recently doubled its uranium-processing capacity, which remains miniscule at the moment; the best estimate is that even if the Iranians are seeking to develop nuclear weapons, they're 10 years out.)
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
you'd recommend voting only for candidates who want peace.
There are many pro-war Democrats. Should the Democrats gain a majority that includes pro-war Democrats, they will never have a majority when it comes to an actual vote, as the pro-war Democrats will vote with the Republicans.
By claiming that you want peace, but advising people to vote for pro-war Democrats, you show yourself to be a complete hypocrite, or perhaps totally unfamiliar with Congressional politics. A Democratic majority cannot end the war. Only an anti-war majority could try to do that. But, of course, with Bush still using his signing statements to nullify legislation and holding the veto, even unanimous Congressional opposition to the war wouldn't end it. You'd have to impeach Bush first, which is something the Democrats have pledged not to do.
There are individual anti-war Democrats. Dr. Bob Bowman in Florida and Jeeni Criscenzo in California are shining examples. I recommend people vote for them, not because they are Democrats, but because they are anti-war.
A vote for a pro-war Democrat is a vote for the Bush agenda. If you oppose the war it is a vote against your own interests. How many more people have to die needlessly because of unthinking party loyalties?
If your choice appears to be between a pro-war Republican and a pro-war Democrat, take a closer look at your ballot. There are probably peace candidates there, from the Green Party the Peace and Freedom party, or without any party support at all. If you really want peace, that's who you'll vote for. Because otherwise you are voting with the blood of innocents on your hands.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1320 comments)
on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 10:32:28 PM
As I see it -- others have another point of view, which I respect -- the issue is not pro-war and anti-war, but breaking the six-year momentum of a neo-fascist movement and starting the work of driving them from having much influence on our politics. Once the momentum is broken, which would be the case if the Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate, then we can devote some time to "purifying" the party. But first things first.
by
Bernard Weiner (147 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 11:34:49 PM
just because the Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate.
Bush still has his signing statements to nullify any legislation he doesn't like, and he also has veto power. The Democrats can't pass any legislation unless he wants them to, and they have pledged not to try to impeach him.
Add to that the fact that many of the so-called Democrats who are likely to be elected, have consistently voted with the Republicans and support the Republican agenda, so when it comes down to an actual vote, a Democratic majority in Congress will turn out to be the same old Republican majority.
You can't oppose fascism by voting for fascists and fascist collaborators. The war is just one aspect of corporate-run government for profit. But anyone who doesn't oppose an illegal war, can't pretend to be anti-fascist. And the Democratic Party does not oppose the war. There are a few brave Democrats who oppose the war, but they are a tiny minority. The party leadership is as fascist as the Republicans, pro-war, pro-corporations, pro-globalization, pro-torture, and anti-Constitution.
Pelosi isn't talking about ending the war, ending torture, ending illegal wiretapping, or in any way opposing fascism. Pelosi is talking about "breaking the links between lobbyists and legislation." And when Pelosi's bill doesn't pass because too many members of Congress are dependent upon corporate contributions, or when it passes and Bush vetoes it, Pelosi will blame the Republicans. But it was Pelosi who pledged not to try to impeach Bush, knowing full well that he has the veto power to stop any progressive legislation.
You're being played, and you think you're a player. Unless, of course, you're a paid shill for the corporatists. In that case, like any good fascist, you're just doing your job.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1320 comments)
on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 7:21:08 AM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
