Today's Article
Our enemy may well
be using violence in
Iraq to keep us in a
fool-hardy, losing
situation.
be using violence in
Iraq to keep us in a
fool-hardy, losing
situation.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Are Attacks On U.S. Troops Meant To Keep Them In Iraq?
By Cliff Montgomery
Leo Tolstoy once wrote that the public should never listen to those shrill voices we now call "professional pundits". If
memory serves, Tolstoy declared that a pundit is either a former political bigwig who's so sleazy that no politician wants to
work with him anymore, or is so out of his mind that no political camp would ever use him as a serious candidate.
I'll let you decide which type Fox News' Bill O'Reilly happens to be. As is usually the case, the Fox News pundit parroted
the recent empty rhetoric from the White House about Iraq. Both currently claim that the recent surge in violence, only
weeks before an American Congressional election, is designed to force us out of Iraq...and of course, to end the
Republican domination of Congress.
But that rhetoric is wrong on two counts.
First, the modern Republican leadership doesn't need any help in losing the trust of the American people. From the fake
war in Iraq to their exportation of American jobs, from "inappropriate" e-mails to underage kids to their response to a little
hurricane called Katrina, the Republicans have been soundly destroying any faith Americans had in them all by
themselves.
Second, it appears that the attacks may actually be intended to keep U.S. troops in Iraq--a virtual shooting gallery where
the terrorists can remain on the offensive, and where the unpopularity of the U.S. presence has become the best Islamist
rallying point since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
According to a story published yesterday in the Associated Press (AP), "American officials...said more U.S. troops
might be needed to quell the [Iraqi] bloodshed."
"U.S. officials previously said they were satisfied with troop levels and had [even] expected to make significant reductions
by year's end." But, the AP article continued, "a surge in sectarian killings, which welled up this past summer, forced them
to reconsider."
Said Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, "Now, do we need more troops [to keep down attacks]? Maybe.
And, as I've said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops I need, both coalition and Iraqis."
There are currently 144,000 U.S. forces stationed in Iraq.
There is another article, also published on Oct. 24th, from Agence France-Presse (AFP). It's titled, "Rising Violence Set
Back Timeline For Iraqi Security Hand Over: General."
The AFP articles reads, "The top U.S. general acknowledged that U.S. commanders have had to redo their timelines for
handing over security to Iraqi security forces amid rising violence."
General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by reporters whether the latest estimate
represented another delay.
"I can understand how you would look at it that way, but the truth is, is that [Casey] is making fresh assessments each
time," Pace said.
"And his assessment today, basing it on a thinking enemy, but also on what we know about our capacity to help the Iraqis,
is that, some time in the next year to 18 months, he'll be able to do that," he added.
So we must ask ourselves: what is the real purpose of this upswing of violence? It seems designed not to drive us out, but
to keep us in Iraq, perhaps because it's served terrorist organizations so very well so far...or perhaps because the Iraq
mess keeps U.S. troops from fully re-dedicating themselves to looking for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda's leadership in
Afghanistan.
In any case, it's a hand well played. The surge in violence is producing a rather predictable response from a president
who's already hinged his presidency on the "fruitless nation-building" of Iraq. Bush won't dare pull out now, for the
same reason President Johnson wouldn't pull troops out of Vietnam: a pullout from a raging war based on lies and deceit
would surely spell impeachment for any president who tried it.
Johnson had the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident--his set of lies claiming that U.S. forces in the Tonkin Gulf were attacked by
North Vietnamese warships without provocation. That's what gave him the leverage to turn a "peacekeeping situation"
into a full-blown war.
George W. Bush had his lies about still-potent WMD's in Iraq--claims which this reporter's 2003 article on Alternet.org
proved to be downright lies, citing the Defense Department's own reports documenting Iraq's lack of WMD capabilities
after the first Gulf War. Even the 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later found administration claims to be little
more than the result of "group think", which worked to "ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and
expanding weapons of mass destruction programs."
So the surge in violence indeed appears to be happening for a reason. But let's recognize the actual reason, and not hear
another lie based on "group think" and cheap politics.
By Cliff Montgomery
Leo Tolstoy once wrote that the public should never listen to those shrill voices we now call "professional pundits". If
memory serves, Tolstoy declared that a pundit is either a former political bigwig who's so sleazy that no politician wants to
work with him anymore, or is so out of his mind that no political camp would ever use him as a serious candidate.
I'll let you decide which type Fox News' Bill O'Reilly happens to be. As is usually the case, the Fox News pundit parroted
the recent empty rhetoric from the White House about Iraq. Both currently claim that the recent surge in violence, only
weeks before an American Congressional election, is designed to force us out of Iraq...and of course, to end the
Republican domination of Congress.
But that rhetoric is wrong on two counts.
First, the modern Republican leadership doesn't need any help in losing the trust of the American people. From the fake
war in Iraq to their exportation of American jobs, from "inappropriate" e-mails to underage kids to their response to a little
hurricane called Katrina, the Republicans have been soundly destroying any faith Americans had in them all by
themselves.
Second, it appears that the attacks may actually be intended to keep U.S. troops in Iraq--a virtual shooting gallery where
the terrorists can remain on the offensive, and where the unpopularity of the U.S. presence has become the best Islamist
rallying point since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
According to a story published yesterday in the Associated Press (AP), "American officials...said more U.S. troops
might be needed to quell the [Iraqi] bloodshed."
"U.S. officials previously said they were satisfied with troop levels and had [even] expected to make significant reductions
by year's end." But, the AP article continued, "a surge in sectarian killings, which welled up this past summer, forced them
to reconsider."
Said Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, "Now, do we need more troops [to keep down attacks]? Maybe.
And, as I've said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops I need, both coalition and Iraqis."
There are currently 144,000 U.S. forces stationed in Iraq.
There is another article, also published on Oct. 24th, from Agence France-Presse (AFP). It's titled, "Rising Violence Set
Back Timeline For Iraqi Security Hand Over: General."
The AFP articles reads, "The top U.S. general acknowledged that U.S. commanders have had to redo their timelines for
handing over security to Iraqi security forces amid rising violence."
General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by reporters whether the latest estimate
represented another delay.
"I can understand how you would look at it that way, but the truth is, is that [Casey] is making fresh assessments each
time," Pace said.
"And his assessment today, basing it on a thinking enemy, but also on what we know about our capacity to help the Iraqis,
is that, some time in the next year to 18 months, he'll be able to do that," he added.
So we must ask ourselves: what is the real purpose of this upswing of violence? It seems designed not to drive us out, but
to keep us in Iraq, perhaps because it's served terrorist organizations so very well so far...or perhaps because the Iraq
mess keeps U.S. troops from fully re-dedicating themselves to looking for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda's leadership in
Afghanistan.
In any case, it's a hand well played. The surge in violence is producing a rather predictable response from a president
who's already hinged his presidency on the "fruitless nation-building" of Iraq. Bush won't dare pull out now, for the
same reason President Johnson wouldn't pull troops out of Vietnam: a pullout from a raging war based on lies and deceit
would surely spell impeachment for any president who tried it.
Johnson had the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident--his set of lies claiming that U.S. forces in the Tonkin Gulf were attacked by
North Vietnamese warships without provocation. That's what gave him the leverage to turn a "peacekeeping situation"
into a full-blown war.
George W. Bush had his lies about still-potent WMD's in Iraq--claims which this reporter's 2003 article on Alternet.org
proved to be downright lies, citing the Defense Department's own reports documenting Iraq's lack of WMD capabilities
after the first Gulf War. Even the 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later found administration claims to be little
more than the result of "group think", which worked to "ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and
expanding weapons of mass destruction programs."
So the surge in violence indeed appears to be happening for a reason. But let's recognize the actual reason, and not hear
another lie based on "group think" and cheap politics.