85 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 17 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Iraq: Assumptions Moving Forward

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
Message steve pipkin-savage
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
After listening to the Charles Goyette Show this morning, as usual,--1100kfnx.com--, then the exchanges broadcast live on CNN later, I am determined to move forward in my thinking regarding Iraq and the U.S. "war on terror" centered there. I am moving forward in my thinking, better advised by these two luminous listens, based on certain new or hardened old assumptions, to wit: 1) The stated goal of the Iraq war effort is now to assist Iraqis in becoming self-determining "with U.S. help". This is the stated goal, stated and re-stated today by John Abizaid. That this assistance is to be open-ended for an indefinite period of time is apparently, based on today's exchanges, an unstated part of the goal. It is heavily implied in all of Abizaid's answers. This means that I will assume, barring intervention by Congress, that the real goal of the Bush administration and its Iraqi puppets--a hardened assumption based on today's programs/exchanges-- is "to assist Iraqis TOWARD self-determination over an indefinite period of time and at an undefined/undefinable cost to the U.S. with no significant increase or decrease in curent troop levels." This sounds like "status quo", as McCain so astutely pointed out. But, Abizaid says, that is not so. He is advocating a "major strategy change" which involves, as nearly as I could determine, the reshuffling of troops from one job description to another to bolster the training ops of Iraqis. Meanwhile, uniformed Iraqis, obviously well-enough trained to complete a massive kidnap mission did just that in Baghdad. So, I am assuming, moving forward that the U.S./coalition military intends to "slightly alter" its approach in Iraq to make more Iraqis more capable of offering chaotic resistance to the coaliton-led goal. And, I will assume moving forward, that this "major slight change" is also part of the real plan which cannot be, has never been, defined for public consumption, for whatever clandestine reasons the Bushies and their puppets continue to hold close to the vest. Of course, the Goyette show caller said it best: we know that the Iraq quagmire was wrong and intended, but we--the People--feel "powerless" to do anything about it. That's the bad news. But, read on.... 2) The military-industrial complex is firmly in control of the future of Iraq. I am assuming this based on two things: One, John Abizaid spoke more like a politician on the take than a general committed to the goal he was verbally espousing. I am assuming, going forward, that John Abizaid is part of the problem and a beneficiary of the "real" clandestine reason we are in Iraq; whatever it is, it involves the expansion of the military-industrial complex. Two, two pro-war Republicans mounted arguments today that logically lead them to conclude, based on Abizaid's "stay the course with slightly major corrections" responses, that the only way out of Iraq successfully is to withdraw from Iraq at least the military part of the military-industrial complex, since there is no way to "win" the stated goal logically: tring to make an entity independent by first making it dependent without definable limits is a no-win situation for liberator or liberatee. McCain, who says he is for more will and boots on the ground to "win" the objective, acknowledges that he doesn't know where the boots would come from, which means he is really arguing either for a draft or a withdrawal and Lindsay Graham said flat out: "we need to get the hell out of there" and noted that Abizaid used non-sequitur arguments to keep us there. The Dems ideas that we should re-deploy or do a "soft partition" were roundly defeated verbally by Abizaid and given the logic implicit in Graham-McCain arguments, this indicates that the net of this session today was to raise consciousness with the People about the "mission" and how it is being achieved. Stalemate. I am assuming that this stalemate will result in slight changes in the approach and more time and money and lives spent in Iraq...indefinitely. That means more money for Halliburton/KelloggBrownRoot, Tricky Dick Cheney's company, and the Carlyle Group, Jim Baker and George H. W. Bush's company and for all the other military-industrial complex's buddy-system contractors and industries. Not Bechtel anymore; they left because it "wasn't what they expected." Really, wonder why? It also means more time to build bases and the embassy-empire from which the Iraq-U.S. coaltion government will run things for the same "indefinite" period of time, administering such trivia as the distribution and exportation of.....desert products. Like oil. Hmmm. By now, I have one thoroughly-hardened assumption: the war went swimmingly and is going great as far as the Bush Crime Family is concerned. Keeping the American public, via its "representatives" in D.C.--a district without representation according to the license plates issued there--"sold" on indefinite "war against terror" is the key to "perpetual profits". Charles Goyette, like I an opponent of the war from the beginning, has a pet cynical phrase he likes to repeat on his program from time-to-time: "Perpetual war for perpetual peace." It's like we always talk about in the coffee clutches and barrooms and livingrooms, folks: it's all about greed and power. And, as long as we keep buying the song and dance, that's the way it will continue to be. For, if the stated goal was the real goal, we would never have bombed Iraq the first time. You cannot force liberty. It's an oxymoron. So, we lost that war when we started it. Since the movers and shakers of the war are still selling us on staying, there must be another agenda. I'll be assuming that, hardened now, going forward. The only thing that could change this, folks, is a time-honored sequence of repentance: 1)acknowledge that you have sinned 2)ask for forgiveness 3)make restitution The whole question of "what do we do in Iraq now that we are there?" is a question of continuing hubris and lack of contrition. What we do is acknowledge that we broke it, apologize and pay for our mistakes. The People of Iraq will tell us what to do from there. _____________________________________________
Rate It | View Ratings

Steve Pipkin-savage Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Steve Pipkin-Savage, age 62. ex-USAF missile launch control deputy commander or "triggerman on nukes", 1968-72. grew up in a rightwing fundamentalist cult, graduated from Appalachian Bible College in 1964 and Bob Jones University in 1966. (more...)
Related Topic(s): Iraq, Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Iraq War as Culture War

The United States Occupational Government: An X-Files Government

The Only Way Out

Iraq: Assumptions Moving Forward

The Seven Valleys

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend