On January the 10th, 2007, President Bush revealed his new way forward in the White House’s increasingly convoluted and desperate Iraq policy. Replete with underlying contradictions, on the surface it appeared little more than a reaffirmation of his continuing and isolated belief that the war in Iraq serves a greater purpose with regards to US national security. But as Professor Stephen Zunes wrote soon after for Foreign Policy In Focus…

“The broad consensus among strategic analysts, including those in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, is that the struggle engaged by the U.S. armed forces, despite their enormous sacrifices, has compromised efforts to counter international terrorism and has made America less safe. If succeeding in the fight against terrorism was really the administration’s goal, President Bush would call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.â€?

Two days after the President’s affirmation that more troops would be introduced into the Iraqi theatre, newly appointed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was furthering the ambiguities of Bush’s initiative by claiming that no firm timetable exists with regards to judging whether the new strategy is being effective. All of this comes, of course, on the heels of the removal of Gen. John Abizaid as commander of CENTCOM, who has been replaced by Admiral William Fallon, formerly the commander of USPACOM and once a deputy director for operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, whose appointment many believe is a sign that US air action against Iran prior to the next Presidential election is not only likely, but in the works. Gen. George Casey too is to be replaced, most likely with Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, whose pervious assignment was the training of Iraqi security forces. But one need only look at the testimonies of Generals Anthony Zinni, Greg Newbold, John Riggs, John Batiste, Paul Eaton, and Charles Swannack for proof that both the Pentagon and White House have played two contradicting games with regards to the war, one involving the placation of domestic concerns about the loss of life and reassuring the public that what is occurring in Iraq is not as negative as they are being led to believe, and the other consisting of continually claiming that those carrying out the mission are their top priority while repeatedly failing the men and women of the military with regards to some of the most basic provisions while providing contracts that have generated literally billions of dollars for private contracting firms who provide everything from interrogation to food services to security for high ranking personnel.

In a recent article Frida Berrigan commented…

“Even though today the Armed Forces can’t recruit enough soldiers or adequately equip those already in uniform, the Pentagon is committing itself to massive corporate contracts for new high-tech weapons systems slated to come on-line years, even decades, from now, guaranteed only to enrich their makers.

The typical soldier in Iraq carries about half his or her body weight in gear and suffers the resulting back pain. Body armor, weapon(s), ammunition, water, first aid kit — it adds up in the 120 degree heat of Basra or Baghdad.

Ask soldiers in Iraq what they need most and answers may include: well-armored Humvees (many soldiers are jerry-rigging their own homemade Humvee armor); more body armor (an unofficial 2004 Army study found that one in four casualties in Iraq was the result of inadequate protective gear), or even silly string (Marcelle Shriver found out that her son was squirting the goo into a room as he and his squad searched buildings to detect trip wires around bombs).�

It amazes me that military commanders towed the line as long as they did before publicly succumbing to the obvious reality that the plans conceived and put into effect by the Pentagon were not merely militarily inept, but too conveniently open ended. One can only speculate at the true frustration that they, and their subordinates, must have endured because of the partisan nature of the war, one which has not merely seen the placement of Bush loyalists in key positions in Baghdad despite the fact that there are others better qualified, but one that has repeatedly placed the requirements of the war on their shoulders while muting them from publicly commenting on its realities and the decisions made by men such as former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld which were ultimately projected on to them.

The Central Intelligence Agency has also succumbed to internal convolution and partisanship, with Baghdad station chiefs being replaced for having the audacity to write missives, known as aardwolves, that dared to detail the reality of what was occurring in Iraq during the early months of the occupation. The disregard of negative information with regards to numerous agencies pre-dates the invasion of course, but it continued well after it became clear that a variety of groups, some consisting of elements of the Iraqi officer corps and former intelligence apparatus, chose to slip into the countryside and organize a variety of different resistance groups. That what was later termed ‘the insurgency’ showed rapid adaptation with regards to dealing with American tactics and weapons.

There is little doubt that this administration has acted solely on information that coincides with its political objectives, not necessarily with reality, despite claims that have been made regarding a mountain of nonsense including that the requirements of commanders in the field are of the utmost importance. It is the same engine which has allowed the administration to successfully paint a wide variety of guerrilla groups in Iraq with the same brush, one that ultimately produces the likeness of Osama Bin Landen standing somewhere in the background.

I have often wondered how, after placing a group of even semi-intelligent people in a room, they could walk out of it without considering the underlying cultural and religious tensions that have been prevalent throughout the region’s history in the event that the invasion didn’t turn out to be a re-enactment of the liberation of Paris. After the utter failure of America’s last unilateral farce, Vietnam, one would think someone with a respectable amount of gray matter might dare voice a few hard hitting queries, such as: what if this thing doesn’t go as planned?

From US commanders standing around central Baghdad without orders as to what to do once they reached it, to the farcical mission accomplished stunt, to this month’s troop surge, the United States finds itself once again in the position of a blind giant that has taken no time to survey the terrain while expecting nothing less than the quicksilver success of pro-Western democracy and all the perks that the privatization of industry brings with it (oil being the primary indulgence in this case). Tack on to that the estimated fourteen permanent bases being built in Iraq, not to mention the planet’s largest and most heavily fortified embassy (complete with Starbucks and a variety of other chain stores), and you’ve also got a very convenient military footprint in a vital region of the world, one that allows for the greater application of US funding and training of proxies in the region, such as is currently occurring in Ethiopia with regards to events in Somalia.

Four years on, Iraq remains unstable, its civilian infrastructure still in shambles, and its population overwhelmingly in support of American withdrawal and insurgent attacks on occupational forces. It is a nation engulfed in a civil war that no one on this side of the world will admit is really happening in earnest despite the fact that Baghdad’s morgue alone took in an estimated 16,000 unidentified bodies in 2006 and more than a million Iraqis have fled the country.

While visiting a friend in the States over the holiday’s, a friend of his, whose first admission was that he was a conservative, told me that if America wanted to defeat ‘the Iraqis’ that it possessed the military power to do so. That if it committed all of its resources it could decimate Iraq. He made that statement most likely in an attempt to exonerate America’s inability to successfully impress their ideals on a foreign people, reverting back to age-old standard that, in the end, might makes right. I didn’t spend a great deal of energy arguing the point with him. After all, what is one to say to that? That the country that he professes to love was founded on principles that openly detest the sort of blatant militarism now prevalent in American society, not to mention the use of unilateral force? Then again, had 9/11 occurred prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention perhaps things would be different. I suppose if the abandonment of core principles can be so easily embraced then one has to wonder why they are needed in the first place? Perhaps simply to make people feel better when their elected representatives engage in illegal wars and have to go on national television to not merely defend their necessity, but their escalation.

I have, over the years, wondered at how the use of the word terrorism is possible within the context of war. William Tecumseh Sherman once remarked that there is no use trying to reform war, that it is ‘all hell’. And if it is, then how does one even attempt conciliatory definitions? Is it defined by the actions of a handful of radical zealots hijacking planes and flying them into buildings? Is it defined by the deaths of 2,000 Panamanian civilians during the US invasion of that country in 1989 to capture one man who was not only at one point a CIA asset, but a graduate of the School Of The Americas and whose daughter was actually the Goddaughter of the President of the United States at the time? Is it defined by the deaths of an occupied people who are daily made to suffer the arrogance of a world power so that a population a half a world a way can remain safely anaesthetized?

Convolution prevails. While last November’s elections were clearly a referendum on the war, polls still indicate that a majority of Americans believe that the regime of Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11th. Factual information and opinion has become so blurred that the bigotry openly displayed by some of America’s most prevalent right-wing voices is enjoying what one can only term a black hole renaissance - a period in which historical fact and implication is somehow dismissible by way of ones ability to simply believe it irrelevant and employ the simplest of logic to demonize entire religions, cultures, and those who would dare point to substantiation. It brings to mind the ferocity of the Inquisitions with regards to their impact on the degradation of philosophical and scientific development, let alone true spirituality.

In his speech, President Bush accepted responsibility for US failures in Iraq, and was right to do so. And had it not been an admission to curry domestic favor, but one that was genuine, then his statement would not have been one in which a troop surge was announced. Rather, it would have been quite the opposite.

For the first time in almost four years the Great Ape has sort of admitted that the US is losing the war in Iraq. His solution, though I’m sure only a part, is to increase the size of the US military in general by 70,000 troops in, of course, preparation for a what he likes to remind everyone is, at this point anyway, a war in perpetuity. So I guess they’d better start scouring lower income neighborhoods now before they’re forced to do something drastic and send middle class kids overseas. Because the last time that happened the war so many were supportive of came to an abrupt end.

If we’re to listen to academics like Tariq Ali, then abstract revelations begin to creep into the minds of those Americans completely disconnected from the products of their vengeful recklessness. As the good professor points out - “ideological zealotry has helped destroy Iraq, revive the Taliban and increase the terror threat�. With this fall seeing an average of 900+ attacks against Americans and Iraqis every week, who’s going to argue with him? You?

But hey, what does it matter? What’s $110+ billion this year alone for a war started by men that are little more than adjuncts for war profiteers? (one has to find new and inventive ways around using the now tired phrase military industrial complex). Come to think of it, the Bush family certainly aren’t strangers to war profiteering. The President’s grandfather certainly had some dirty little fingers in some dirty little pies.

Now, who’s for a little Christmas Turkey Loaf in a FEMA trailer?

Appointed in March of this year to delve into ‘what’s gone wrong’ with the Bush administration’s slam-dunk mission to transform the Middle East into Indiana using Iraq as a model, the Iraq Study Group’s findings were released today.

After almost ten months, the report, which was authored by no less than ten people who initially supported the war, contains 98 pages of findings. You can download the entire report here in .pdf form.

I urge everyone to read the report, but keep in mind, it is one formulated by the aggressors in this matter. No matter the mess that the United States has created in Iraq, it must never be forgotten that the damage that they have done there may very well have had the completely opposite effect that was intended, and also may set the growth of grassroots democracy back in the region for years, if not much longer. It is a report, that while critical, and certainly somewhat for the sake of placating steadily growing domestic anger, is one that does not entertain the ramifications of the men and women of low morality that were the architects of what can only be honestly described as mass murder.

No ‘magic formula’? I would offer up a suggestion or two but that might have adverse effects on what is being heralded as the most lucrative year for US arms sales in history, at least since 1993.

I suppose it’s best to start this morning with Hugo Chavez’s Presidential victory, which he secured with ease over his US backed rival, Manuel Rosales, who came nowhere near challenging Chavez’s numbers. This has led, of course, to the usual right-wing fraud conspiracies and accusations of eminent socialist tyranny gripping the nation and greater region.

Find a Western based media outlet and in their coverage of Chavez’s victory they will, without question, raise concerns that he will proclaim himself supreme ruler and plunge Venezuela into a dark age of totalitarianism. That’s what happens when the leader of an oil rich nation refuses to play fair with multi-national corporations with pull. Hell, they’ve done a lot worse in those parts over bananas, never mind oil.

Put into context, let’s look at the ‘reign’, if you will, of our very own Pierre Trudeau, who was effectively the Prime Minister of this country from April of 1968 to June of 1984. There was, of course, a brief period in there where Joe Clark hiccupped, but for the most part Trudeau was Canada’s leader for the better part of 16 years. Of course, unlike our system of government, the Venezuelan constitution sets limits on Presidential terms, which Chavez has worked to extend. I suppose it all comes down to if you believe he’s doing it for maniacal reasons or to ensure that a transformation is completed before it’s aggressively confronted by foreign interests, be it through their proxies or not. That would be why, in my opinion, Chavez remains overtly anti-American in his speeches. That way, if he becomes the next Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, most of the world’s gaze will shift to a specific location for answers.

As it was once said, and forever remains true, most people would rather suffer their own bad government than the good government of a foreign power or its proxies. Like Chavez, Guzmán also came from a military background, even taking part in the coup that overthrew Jorge Ubico. But the threat that he truly posed was that, after being democratically elected with some 60% of the vote in 1951, he worked to repatriate land back to the Guatemalan peasantry. In fact, his reforms were, in some ways, fashioned after the US Homestead Act. Unfortunately, in what became the beginning of a trend in the region, he was ousted by a CIA backed plot (see: Operation PBSUCCESS) to basically protect US business interests in the country and greater region itself.

Oh, and while we’re on the topic, Trudeau hung out with Fidel Castro too. In fact, at his funeral, Jimmy Carter and Castro sat next to one another.

So what will become of the ‘socialist’ revolution sweeping Latin America? Only time will tell. But one thing is for certain, the people of that region have the right to fail or succeed on their own. There are those that consider ‘socialism’ a dirty word, and I have always found that to be rather incredible being that we inhabit a country rife with socialist principles and programs, many of which Canadians hold sacred (even if they do like to bitch about them).

Bolton Resigns

The embattled US Secretary to the United Nations, John Bolton, has announced his resignation. Given the outcome of last month’s elections, the likelihood of Bolton being confirmed by the Senate is as probable as me being called up by the Mariners to pitch in the spring. Bolton had been temporarily filling the position while awaiting Senate confirmation.

Annan Comments On Iraq

From a recent BBC interview with the outgoing Secretary General…

“A few years ago, when we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war. This is much worse.

“We have a very worrisome situation in the broader Middle East,” Mr Annan said, linking the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and tensions over Iran.

[…]

“If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, ‘Am I going to see my child again?’â€?

Is Iraq in a state of civil war? How long do you want to pick gnat shit out of pepper before you call a spade a spade exactly?

Our Bombs Are Ok

Moral superiority, that’s what separates the proverbial ‘us’ from ‘them’.

“Tony Blair has told MPs it would be “unwise and dangerous” for the UK to give up its nuclear weapons. The prime minister outlined plans to spend up to £20bn on a new generation of submarines for Trident missiles.â€?