[Texgreen] Matters arising

[Roger Baker]

Happy holidays. But meanwhile...

                  ************************************************

[Its important to understand that the 'surge' is really a coverup for =20=

escalation of the war. -- Roger]


<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/16301177.htm>

Posted on Sun, Dec. 24, 2006

Troop 'surge' in Iraq would be another mistake
BY W. PATRICK LANG
RRMcGovern@aol.com

and RAY MCGOVERN

Robert Gates' report to the White House on his discussions in Iraq =20
this past week is likely to provide the missing ingredient for the =20
troop ''surge'' into Iraq favored by the ''decider'' team of Vice =20
President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush.

When the understandable misgivings voiced by top U.S. military =20
officials made it obvious that the surge cart had been put before the =20=

mission-objective horse, the president was forced to concede, as he =20
did at his press conference on Wednesday, ``There's got to be a =20
specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more =20
troops, before I agree on that strategy.''

The president had led off the press conference by heightening =20
expectations for the Gates visit to Iraq, noting that ''Secretary =20
Gates is going to be an important voice in the Iraq strategy review =20
that's under way.'' No doubt Gates was given the job of hammering out =20=

a ''specific mission'' with U.S. generals and Iraqi leaders, and he =20
is past master at sensing and delivering on his bosses' wishes.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's aides have given Western reporters =20
an outline of what the ''specific mission'' may look like. It is =20
likely to be cast as implementation of Maliki's ''new vision,'' under =20=

which U.S. troops would target primarily Sunni insurgents in outer =20
Baghdad neighborhoods, while Iraqi forces would battle for control of =20=

inner Baghdad. A prescription for bloodbath, it has the advantage, =20
from the White House perspective, of preventing the Iraqi capital =20
from total disintegration until Bush and Cheney are out of office.

Well before Tuesday, when Gates flew off to Iraq, it was clear that =20
Cheney and Bush remained determined to stay the course (without using =20=

those words) for the next two years. And the president's Washington =20
Post interview on Tuesday, as well has his press conference Wednesday =20=

strengthened that impression. In his prepared statement for the Post, =20=

Bush cast the conflict in Iraq as an enduring ''ideological =20
struggle,'' the context in which he disclosed that he is now =20
``inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops, the =20
Army and Marines.''

Inconsistent message

Lest the Post reporters miss the point, the president added, ''I'm =20
going to keep repeating this over and over again, that I believe =20
we're in an ideological struggle . . . that our country will be =20
dealing with for a long time.'' In the same interview, he described =20
''sectarian violence'' in Iraq as ``obviously the real problem we =20
face.''

At his press conference the next day, the president repeated the same =20=

dual, inconsistent message, which went unchallenged by the White =20
House press corps. Pick your poison: Do you prefer ''sectarian =20
violence'' as the real problem? Or is it ''ideological struggle?'' =20
The White House seems to be depending on a credulous press and =20
Christmas-party eggnog to get by on this.

Incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said last Sunday =20
that he could ''go along'' with the widely predicted surge in U.S. =20
troops in Iraq, but for only two or three months. Is it conceivable =20
that Reid doesn't know that this is about the next two years -- not =20
months? Egged on by ''full-speed-ahead'' Cheney, Bush is determined =20
that the war not be lost while he is president. And he is commander-=20
in-chief. Events, however, are fast overtaking White House =20
preferences and are moving toward denouement well before two more =20
years are up.

`Get with the program'

Virtually everyone concedes that the war cannot be won militarily. =20
And yet the so-called ''neoconservatives'' whom Bush has listened to =20
in the past are arguing strongly for a surge in troop strength. A =20
generation from now, our grandchildren will have difficulty writing =20
history papers on the oxymoronic debate now raging on how to surge/=20
withdraw our troops into/from the quagmire in Iraq.

The generals in Iraq may have already been ordered by the White House =20=

to ''get with the program'' on surging. Just as they ''never asked =20
for more troops'' at earlier stages of the war, they are likely to be =20=

instant devotees of a surge, once they smell the breezes from =20
Washington. As for Gates, it is a safe bet that whatever personal =20
input he may dare to offer will be dwarfed by Cheney's. Taking issue =20
with ''deciders'' has never been Gates' strong suit.

Whether Gates realizes it or not, the U.S. military is about to =20
commit hara-kiri by ''surge.'' The generals should know that, once an =20=

''all or nothing'' offensive like the ''surge'' apparently =20
contemplated has begun, there is no turning back.

It will be ''victory'' over the insurgents and the Shiite militias or =20=

palpable defeat, recognizable by all in Iraq and across the world. =20
Any conceivable ''surge'' would not turn the tide -- would not even =20
stem it. We saw that last summer when the dispatch of 7,000 U.S. =20
troops to reinforce Baghdad brought a fierce counter-surge -- the =20
highest level of violence since the Pentagon began issuing quarterly =20
reports in 2005.

A major buildup would commit the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to =20
decisive combat in which there would be no more strategic reserves to =20=

be sent to the front. As Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway =20
pointed out Monday, ``If you commit your reserve for something other =20
than a decisive win, or to stave off defeat, then you have =20
essentially shot your bolt.''

It will be a matter of win or die in the attempt. In that situation, =20
everyone in uniform on the ground will commit every ounce of their =20
being to ''victory,'' and few measures will be shrunk from.

Analogies come to mind: Stalingrad, the Bulge, Dien Bien Phu, the =20
Battle of Algiers.

It will be total war with the likelihood of all the excesses and mass =20=

casualties that come with total war. To force such a strategy on our =20
armed forces would be nothing short of immoral, in view of =20
predictable troop losses and the huge number of Iraqis who would meet =20=

violent injury and death. If adopted, the ''surge'' strategy will =20
turn out to be something we will spend a generation living down.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., spoke for many of us on Sunday when George =20=

Stephanopoulos asked him to explain why Smith had said on the Senate =20
floor that U.S. policy on Iraq may be ``criminal:''

``You can use any adjective you want, George. But I have long =20
believed in a military context, when you do the same thing over and =20
over again, without a clear strategy for victory, at the expense of =20
your young people in arms, that is dereliction. That is deeply =20
immoral.''

W. Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel, served with Special Forces =20
in Vietnam, as a professor at West Point and as defense intelligence =20
officer for the Middle East. Ray McGovern was also an Army infantry/=20
intelligence officer before his 27-year career as a CIA analyst. Both =20=

are with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.



                   *********************************

[New Bush jobs program]

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2517659,00.html>

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (=A35.1 billion) to Iraq =20=

as part of a =93New Deal=94 that would create work for unemployed =
Iraqis, =20
following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the =20
1930s depression.

At the Pentagon, the joint chiefs of staff are insisting on =20
reconstruction funds as part of a package of political and economic =20
measures to accompany the armed forces. They fear the extra troops =20
will be wasted and more lives lost if Bush relies purely on the =20
military to pacify Iraq, according to sources close to General Peter =20
Schoomaker, the army chief of staff. ...

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House and a =20
member of the defence policy board advising the Pentagon, is calling =20
for a cross between the New Deal and the post-second world war =20
Marshall Plan that would =93mop up every young Iraqi male who is =20
unemployed=94. He said it would be =93as big a strategic step towards =20=

victory as whether you have more troops or fewer troops=94.

                    ************************************


Banality and barefaced lies

Here in America, I stare at the land in which I live and see a
landscape I do not recognise

By Robert Fisk

12/23/06 "The Independent" -- -- I call it the Alice in Wonderland
effect. Each time I tour the United States, I stare through the
looking glass at the faraway region in which I live and work for The
Independent - the Middle East - and see a landscape which I do no
recognise, a distant tragedy turned, here in America, into a farce of
hypocrisy and banality and barefaced lies. Am I the Cheshire Cat? Or
the Mad Hatter?

I picked up Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid at
San Francisco airport, and zipped through it in a day. It's a good,
strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood.
Carter lists the outrageous treatment meted out to the Palestinians,
the Israeli occupation, the dispossession of Palestinian land by
Israel, the brutality visited upon this denuded, subject population,
and what he calls "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying
the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis
totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of
their basic human rights".

Carter quotes an Israeli as saying he is "afraid that we are moving
towards a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of
Jewish rulers and Arabs subjects with few rights of citizenship...". A
proposed but unacceptable modification of this choice, Carter adds,
"is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with
the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and
Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of
land left to them".

Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the
appearance of this eminently sensible book - until the usual Israeli
lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor old Jimmy Carter, albeit that
he was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between
Israel and an Arab neighbour - Egypt - secured with the famous 1978
Camp David accords. The New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to
Print", ho! ho!) then felt free to tell its readers that Carter had
stirred "furore among Jews" with his use of the word "apartheid". The
ex-president replied by mildly (and rightly) pointing out that Israeli
lobbyists had produced among US editorial boards a "reluctance to
criticise the Israeli government".

Typical of the dirt thrown at Carter was the comment by Michael
Kinsley in The New York Times (of course) that Carter "is comparing
Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa". This
was followed by a vicious statement from Abe Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League, who said that the reason Carter gave for
writing this book "is this shameless, shameful canard that the Jews
control the debate in this country, especially when it comes to the
media. What makes this serious is that he's not just another pundit,
and he's not just another analyst. He is a former president of the
United States".

But well, yes, that's the point, isn't it? This is no tract by a
Harvard professor on the power of the lobby. It's an honourable,
honest account by a friend of Israel as well as the Arabs who just
happens to be a fine American ex-statesman. Which is why Carter's book
is now a best-seller - and applause here, by the way, for the great
American public that bought the book instead of believing Mr Foxman.

But in this context, why, I wonder, didn't The New York Times and the
other gutless mainstream newspapers in the United States mention
Israel's cosy relationship with that very racist apartheid regime in
South Africa which Carter is not supposed to mention in his book?
Didn't Israel have a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist
South Africa? Didn't Israel have a fruitful and deep military
relationship with that racist regime? Am I dreaming,
looking-glass-like, when I recall that in April of 1976, Prime
Minister John Vorster of South Africa - one of the architects of this
vile Nazi-like system of apartheid - paid a state visit to Israel and
was honoured with an official reception from Israeli prime minister
Menachem Begin, war hero Moshe Dayan and future Nobel prize-winner
Yitzhak Rabin? This of course, certainly did not become part of the
great American debate on Carter's book.

At Detroit airport, I picked up an even slimmer volume, the
Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report - which doesn't really study
Iraq at all but offers a few bleak ways in which George Bush can run
away from this disaster without too much blood on his shirt. After
chatting to the Iraqis in the green zone of Baghdad - dream zone would
be a more accurate title - there are a few worthy suggestions (already
predictably rejected by the Israelis): a resumption of serious
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, an Israeli withdrawal from Golan,
etc. But it's written in the same tired semantics of right-wing think
tanks - the language, in fact, of the discredited Brookings
Institution and of my old mate, the messianic New York Times columnist
Tom Friedman - full of "porous" borders and admonitions that "time is
running out".

The clue to all this nonsense, I discovered, comes at the back of the
report where it lists the "experts" consulted by Messrs Baker,
Hamilton and the rest. Many of them are pillars of the Brookings
Institution and there is Thomas Freedman of The New York Times.

But for sheer folly, it was impossible to beat the post-Baker debate
among the great and the good who dragged the United States into this
catastrophe. General Peter Pace, the extremely odd chairman of the US
joint chiefs of staff, said of the American war in Iraq that "we are
not winning, but we are not losing". Bush's new defence secretary,
Robert Gates, announced that he "agreed with General Pace that we are
not winning, but we are not losing". Baker himself jumped into the
same nonsense pool by asserting: "I don't think you can say we're
losing. By the same token (sic), I'm not sure we're winning." At which
point, Bush proclaimed this week that - yes - "we're not winning,
we're not losing". Pity about the Iraqis.

I pondered this madness during a bout of severe turbulence at 37,000
feet over Colorado. And that's when it hit me, the whole final score
in this unique round of the Iraq war between the United States of
America and the forces of evil. It's a draw!

(c) 2006 Independent News and Media Limited