What's new

From “catastrophic success” to “successful catastrophe”:

lulldapull

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
222
Reaction score
0
From “catastrophic success” to “successful catastrophe”:

Bush and Iran

By way of explaining how we arrived at the current state of affairs in Iraq, Tony Snow recently trotted out Tommy Franks’ remark about the invasion of Iraq having proved a “catastrophic success.” Bush’s New Way Forward in Iraq seems calculated, deliberately or not, to arrive at the inverse — a successful catastrophe that will justify a US attack on Iran and Syria, followed by the final variation on the theme: a catastrophic catastrophe.

Even if US actions such as Thursday’s assault on the Iranian consulate in Irbil don’t succeed in provoking Iran into an attributable attack on US interests, Bush made clear in his Wednesday speech that from now on any US or Iraqi government failures will be ascribed to Iran and Syria on the counts of allowing foreign militants into the country and providing material support to both sides of the civil war. Tom Englehardt pointed out yesterday that thanks to the president’s speech and innumerable administration briefings and leaks on the new plan, everyone involved now has a pretty clear idea of what to expect, along with a fair amount of lead time in which to prepare their various responses. With the insurgents, the militias, the government, the Iraqi army and the somewhat obscure but fascinating 150,000-strong Facilities Protection Service operating at cross purposes with and within each other, the foredoomed plan will collapse into bloody failure sooner rather than later. And then it’s on to Iran, without all the pointless consultation that wasted so much valuable presidential vacation time before the invasion of Iraq.

Despite the president’s record of following each failure or outrage with another, a surprising number of people are only now coming to realize that whatever he just did, there’s worse coming. That anyone should have been shocked by Bush’s decision to escalate the US commitment to Iraq despite the disapproval of Congress and voters is astonishing; he has spoken of his disillusion with both bodies more fluently than on most other subjects, and he has repeatedly said that his word is law on matters of national security.

He will attack Iran because he’s running out of things and people to blame for his failures in Iraq. He’s running out of generals just as the generals are running out of troops. He can blame the Iraqi government, but he can’t fire the whole country (although something like 10% of the population is already dead or fled) without admitting defeat. He won’t admit defeat, so Iran will become the country that is responsible for his problems and the neutering of which will end them.

In addition to Bush and his problems, we have Dick Cheney. Success in Iraq was intended, among other things, to isolate Iran. That country was always the biggest challenge to US hegemony in the Middle East; Iraq was weak and isolated, Syria is weak, Egypt and Jordan are dependent upon US support, Saudi Arabia is both fragile and a friend to the administration, while Iran has close relationships with Russia and China and serious beefs with the US. Cheney is sitting on four heart attacks, a 35-year old grudge against the institution of Congress, a belief in unfettered executive power, a plan to dominate the region and less than two years to sweep the board . One way or another, time is running short. Better to act sooner rather than risk leaving the matter in the questionable hands of the next Congress and a president necessarily less militant on both the foreign policy and Constitutional fronts. And where Iraq is concerned, better to turn lemons into lemonade.

The only way to halt the march is the impeachment and conviction of both Bush and Cheney. And even then, it’s not at all clear that the White House would acknowledge Congressional authority in that matter any more than in any other. Their removal would, after all, be a blow to national security. Cheney isn’t the only one for whom time is running short.

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1563
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom