Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2007, pages 10-11

Two Views

President Bush’s Address to the Nation

Bush’s Prescription for More War

By William D. Hartung

PRESIDENT BUSH’S alleged new strategy for Iraq, outlined in a mercifully brief Jan. 10 prime time speech, is a recipe for disaster for Iraq, the United States, and the region.

For Iraqis, the prospect of stepped-up U.S. military action in Baghdad will spur a sharp increase in civilian casualties, sectarian violence and recruitment by al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

A foreshadowing of the consequences of the new strategy for Iraqis was provided the day before Bush’s speech, when one thousand Iraqi troops backed up by U.S. ground and air forces attacked a heavily populated Sunni neighborhood just about half a mile from the heavily fortified “Green Zone” that houses U.S. officials in Baghdad.

The attack, aimed at Sunni insurgents, was backed up with air strikes by U.S.-operated Apache helicopters and F-16 combat aircraft. U.S. officials claimed that 50 insurgents were killed in the raid, while local Sunni leaders asserted that all 50 dead were civilians. The truth may lie somewhere in between, but there is no question that an acceleration of similar attacks will lead to greater Iraqi civilian casualties. The destruction caused by this approach could turn some Baghdad neighborhoods into mini-Fallujahs, the Iraqi city that was flattened by U.S. military strikes in November 2004 as part of “Operation Phantom Fury.”

For the United States, the biggest losers from the Bush strategy will be, as usual, U.S. troops. The 20,000 “new” U.S. troops committed to the occupation will be generated by increasing the pace of deployment of existing Army, Marine, and National Guard units. The plan for street fighting in Iraq will increase U.S. casualties, particularly if U.S. forces pick a fight with the 60,000-strong Mahdi army of Shi’i cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

The increased pace of the fighting and the greater intensity of combat operations are also likely to increase instances of post-traumatic stress syndrome and brain injuries among U.S. troops. These injuries have already afflicted roughly 20,000 U.S. military personnel who have done rotations in Iraq. These potential impacts put the lie to President Bush’s claim to be engaging in this escalation as a way of “supporting the troops.”

Contrary to the recommendation by the James Baker/Lee Hamilton-led Iraq Study Group to engage Iran and Syria in a diplomatic initiative to stabilize Iraq, President Bush’s rhetoric stopped just short of a declaration of war against these two nations. Within hours of the president’s pledge to step up policing of the borders of Iran and Syria with Iraq and root out networks that are allegedly supplying arms and training to Iraqi insurgents, U.S. forces in Iraqi Kurdistan attacked the Iranian Embassy in Irbil, arresting six embassy personnel.

The raid, which was carried out without informing Kurdish authorities, sparked a military standoff between U.S. and Kurdish security forces that led to the evacuation of several U.S. soldiers via helicopter. The attack was a blow to U.S.-Kurdish relations at a time when Kurdish forces have been one of the few U.S. allies in the occupation.

It is unclear at this point whether this provocation of Iran, which has been compounded by the announcement that an additional U.S. carrier battle group will be deployed to the region, is the first step toward war, or simply part of an effort to blame Iran for U.S. difficulties in Iraq. In the worst case it could represent both, with the attempt to blame Iran for bolstering the Iraqi insurgency serving as an additional rationale for war, alongside the Bush administration’s threatening rhetoric over the Iranian nuclear program.

As expected, President Bush made no reference to the budgetary costs of the war, which are at $400 billion and rising. His promise of $1.2 billion to help rebuild Iraq and reduce its unemployment rate—which is estimated at 40 to 60 percent—is laughable when placed alongside U.S. military spending in Iraq. The war is now costing at least $8 billion per month, a figure more than six times the administration’s planned budget for reconstruction aid over the next year. If we follow the money instead of the rhetoric, the Bush plan is a blueprint for protracted conflict in Iraq.

The only good news in all of this is that the stage is set for an upsurge in the scope and effectiveness of antiwar efforts. A majority of the American people oppose the war, as do a majority of American troops. A poll of Iraqis by the University of Maryland indicates that over two-thirds of Iraqis want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year. And the new Democratic leadership in Congress has taken a step forward by raising the prospect of cutting off funding for the administration’s escalation of the war. There is still much work to be done to bring policy into line with public opinion on the war. But the time to act is now, before the administration can fully implement its plans for a wider, more violent, and more dangerous war that will have ramifications far beyond Iraq.

William D. Hartung is a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York. This article first appeared on AntiWar.com, <www.antiwar.com>, Jan. 12, 2007. Reprinted with permission.

The “Surge” Is a Red Herring

By Paul Craig Roberts

Bush’s “surge” speech is a hoax, but members of Congress and media commentators are discussing the surge as if it were real.

I invite the reader to examine the speech. The “surge” content consists of nonsensical propagandistic statements. The real content of the speech is toward the end, where Bush mentions Iran and Syria.

Bush makes it clear that success in Iraq does not depend on the surge. Rather, “Succeeding in Iraq…begins with addressing Iran and Syria.”

Bush asserts that “these two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.”

Bush’s assertions are propagandistic lies.

The Iraq insurgency is Sunni. Iran is Shi’i. If Iran is supporting anyone in Iraq it is the Shi’i, who have not been part of the insurgency. Indeed, the Sunni and Shi’i are engaged in a civil war within Iraq.

Does any intelligent person really believe that Iranian Shi’i are going to arm Iraqi Sunnis who are killing Iraqi Shi’i allied with Iran? Does anyone really believe that Iranian Shi’i are going to provide sanctuary for Iraqi Sunnis?

Bush can tell blatant propagandistic lies, because Congress and the American people don’t know enough facts to realize the absurdity of Bush’s assertions.

Why is Bush telling these lies? Here is the answer: Bush says, “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Bush states perfectly clearly that victory in Iraq requires U.S. forces to attack Iran and Syria.

In those words, Bush states perfectly clearly that victory in Iraq requires U.S. forces to attack Iran and Syria. Moreover, Bush says, “We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

What do two U.S. aircraft carrier attack groups in the Persian Gulf have to do with a guerrilla ground war in Iraq?

Bush states perfectly clearly that victory in Iraq requires U.S. forces to attack Iran and Syria.

The “surge” is merely a tactic to buy time while war with Iran and Syria can be orchestrated. The neoconservative/Israeli cabal feared that the pressure that Congress, the public, and the American foreign policy establishment were putting on Bush to de-escalate in Iraq would terminate their plan to achieve hegemony in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq would mean the end of the neoconservatives’ influence. It would be impossible to start a new war with Iran after losing the war in Iraq.

The neoconservatives and the right-wing Israeli government have clearly stated their plans to overthrow Muslim governments throughout the region and to deracinate Islam. These plans existed long before 9/11.

Near the end of his “surge” speech, Bush adopts the neoconservative program as U.S. policy. The struggle, Bush says, echoing the neoconservatives and the Israeli right-wing, goes far beyond Iraq. “The challenge,” Bush says, is “playing out across the broader Middle East.…It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.” America is pitted against “extremists” who “have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.” “The most realistic way to protect the American people,” Bush says, is “by advancing liberty across a troubled region.”

This, of course, is a massive duplicitous lie. We have brought no liberty to Iraq, but we have destroyed their way of life. Bush suggests that Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are waiting and hoping for more invasions to free them of violence. Did Bush’s invasion free Iraq from violence or did it bring violence to Iraq?

It is extraordinary that anyone can listen to this blatant declaration of U.S. aggression in the Middle East without demanding Bush’s immediate impeachment.

Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel declared Bush’s plan to be “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” In truth, it is far worse. It is naked aggression justified by transparent lies. No one has ever heard governments in Iraq, Syria, or Iran declare “their intention to destroy our way of life.” To the contrary, it is the United States and Israel that are trying to destroy the Muslim way of life.

The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course.

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and contributing editor of National Review. He is co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. This article first appeared on AntiWar.com, <www.antiwar.com>, Jan. 12, 2007. Reprinted with permission.

< Prev		Next >