This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
"Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans...Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality...different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat."A few months later, on June 13, 2006, Bush flew to Baghdad to size up Prime Minister Maliki. The president told American troops gathered in the "heavily fortified Green Zone" that he had come "to look Prime Minister Maliki in the eyes—to determine whether or not he is as dedicated to a free Iraq as you are. I believe he is."
This, of course, was not the first display of the president's propensity to draw significant impressions from eyeballing foreign leaders. Five years before, Bush had quickly taken the measure of Russia's Vladimir Putin: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy...I was able to get a sense of his soul."
Doesn't Make a Lot of Sense? So?...
In the past, Bush has let himself be convinced by Vice President Dick Cheney's "analysis" that increased enemy attacks were signs of desperation—an indication that the enemy is in its "last throes," if you will. And it seems clear that Cheney is still, as Col. Larry Wilkerson has put it, "whispering in Bush's ear."
That is scary. There were abundant signs during Cheney's recent visit to the Middle East that, among other things, he continues to be receptive to Israeli importuning, as Israeli president Shimon Perez put it on March 23, to deal with what both referred to as "the Iranian threat" before Bush leaves office. Bush and Cheney seem to have given Israeli leaders the impression that the Bush administration has made a commitment to do precisely that.
Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to the president's father and who was appointed Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board by the son, took the unusual step of going public with a startling remark in Oct. 2004 that should give us all great concern. Just before he was sacked, the usually discreet Scowcroft told the Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush "mesmerized." Eyeballing again—this time in Bush's direction, it appears.
And Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with masterful tutoring from the psychologists in the Israeli Mossad, has shown he can duplicate the spell. Who can forget watching Olmert's fulsome praise of George W. Bush during his recent visit to Israel and how Bush seemed to turn to putty. Aw shucks, he seemed to be saying. At least the Israelis respect me. And they are "mighty tough fellas."
Attacking Iran
The point is that if Cheney and Olmert both whisper "attack Iran," the president may give the order with the full expectation that—with Admiral William Fallon out of the way—a malleable secretary of defense and martinet generals and admirals left over from former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's reign will salute smartly and launch a much wider and more dangerous war in the Persian Gulf area. (After all, those rockets hitting the Green Zone are, according to Gen. Petraeus, "Iranian-provided, Iranian-made.")
Why attack Iran? Israeli officials have not been reluctant to insist publicly that they want our impressionable president to take care of their Iran problem before he leaves office.
Last October, for example, Israeli ambassador to the US, Sallai Meridor, rang several changes on the theme of Iran's "threat" to Israel. In warning dripping with chutzpah and unintended candor, the Israeli ambassador served notice that countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude that, "come January '09, they have it their own way." Meridor stressed that "very little time" remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and the time frame he has in mind is clear.
Why attack Iran? Well, also, just because! Because, as Bush is fond of saying, he is commander in chief. And he considers the U.S. armed forces his plaything. And because he can. Never mind the consequences. When has anyone held George W. Bush accountable for consequences?
Worse still, Bush's open-ended rhetorical commitment to defend Israel if attacked could spell big trouble. If Iran were to strike Israel, Bush has said, "We will defend our ally (sic), no ifs, ands, or buts." That is great rhetoric; trouble is that it surrenders the initiative to the Israelis, who have it within their power to provoke the Iranians.
And, Please, No Jimmy Baker
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
