Saturday, September 08, 2007

So That’s Why We’re in Iraq

This morning, the New York Times says: “The figures that have emerged in recent government reports have seemingly provided something for everyone. The most comprehensive and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population." Further on in the article (“Hints of Progress, and Questions, in Iraq Data”) Michael R. Gordon writes, “When President Bush announced in January his decision to send more forces to Iraq, his commanders outlined a new strategy. The goal was to protect the Iraqi public against attacks from insurgents and militias.... Aha! So that’s why we’re in Iraq. We’re protecting the Iraqi public from insurgents and militias (who never would have risen up if the US hadn’t attacked Iraq in the first place). Gordon says, “The Bush administration hoped that the additional security would provide Iraqi leaders with a breathing space to move ahead with their program of political reconciliation. That has not happened. But the infusion of more American troops encouraged Sunni tribes, including former insurgents, to align themselves with American forces, providing American troops with additional allies in their struggle to establish order in Iraq.” How about that! Apparently, the US troops’ mission has shifted again. No longer are US soldiers dying because they are fighting in Iraq’s civil war (a civil war that never would have started if the US hadn’t attacked Iraq in the first place), now they are dying while trying to establish order. That is very interesting. Because my memory is that on March 19, 2003 the hapless failure sitting on the throne in the White House, George W. Bush, announced (without seeking approval from Congress) that he (that is, the neocons running the United States) had decided the US would attack Iraq. When the neocons’ plan for stealing Iraq’s oil resources didn’t work, the Bush administration shifted the US mission in Iraq to bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. When it became clear that the Iraqi people not only didn’t understand democracy but didn’t want the so-called freedom (that is, tyranny) that the Bush administration envisioned for Iraq, the US mission shifted to forcing the Iraqi people to accept the Bush administration’s gift of corruption, tyranny and occupation which it called democracy and freedom, When insurgents and militias decided to protect themselves from the Bush administration’s war, aggression and tyranny, the US mission morphed into one of trying to establish order. As a curtain-raiser to General Petraeus’s new magic act of calling defeat victory, which he will perform on Monday, the Bush administration is claiming that fewer Iraqis are dying in Iraq because US security measures have established order. Michael Gordon wrote, “According to the American military count, the August total for the 10 security districts in Baghdad was 321, down from 1,621 in December when such attacks were at a high.” The fact is, so many Iraqis have already been killed or have fled from Iraq that it’s hard to find more Iraqis to kill. The big question is: Who is protecting Iraq and the Iraqis from the Bush administration and its flunky toadying posturing lying war-loving generals like David Petraeus?

1 comment:

Todd Dugdale said...

Even *if* one were to accept the military's figures, what reasonable person would consider over 300 a month being tortured and killed *in one city* as anything resembling stability?

It's pretty clear to me that these are not the results Bush anticpated when he proposed the surge back in January. Bush has stacked the deck in every conceivable way for this report, and this is the best he can show? "Only" 300 or so deaths a months in one city?