Petraeus Sees US in Iraq For Nine-Ten Years

This morning the Washington Post reported that president Bush’s top commander in Iraq, General David H. Petraeus sees “many, many, challenges” in Iraq. Of course, any thinking person knew that it was a bald-faced lie when Petraeus suggested he would reassess the Iraq situation in September. Even Petraeus knew it was lie. He told ABC News two weeks ago that he had already decided to call the surge in Iraq a success no matter what was really going on in Iraq. But Petraeus translates “success” as meaning “since we are being successful in Iraq, we have to stay there until the Sunnis and Shiites kiss and make up”. Today, the Washington Post said, “Asserting steady, albeit slow, military and political progress, Petraeus said that the 'many, many challenges' would not be resolved 'in a year or even two years.' Similar counterinsurgency operations, he said, citing Britain's experience in Northern Ireland, 'have gone at least nine or 10 years.' He said he and (Ambassador) Crocker would make 'some recommendations on the way ahead' to Congress, and that it was realistic to assume 'some form of long-term security arrangement' with Iraq." Back when the Prez was touting his surge and some kind of pullout of our troops, the Bush administration tied the surge success to Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s success in making Iraq ready to handle its own affairs. Now Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and head of the U.S. military's Central Command Adm. William Fallon all say they are disappointed in Maliki’s progress. But the US has made it impossible for Maliki to have any success. Please note that the Blackwater, USA mercenaries (and all the other private "security" contractors) who are supposed to be putting Iraq back together are actually fighting in the civil war that is keeping Iraq in chaos. And, also please note that Blackwater, USA is being used as the security guards protecting Ryan Crocker. WaPo reported, “Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, his diplomatic counterpart in Baghdad, said a key report they will deliver to Washington in September will include what Crocker called ‘an assessment of what the consequences might be if we pursue other directions.’ Noting the ‘unhelpful roles’ being played by Iran and Syria in Iraq, Crocker said: ‘We've got to consider what could happen.’” The Bush administration, General Petraeus, and Ambassador Crocker are on a crusade to scare the shit out of American voters: If we leave Iraq, Iran will nuke everything in sight, including American cities is the current message. And that, of course, is why turncoat weasel Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Ind-R-whatever-CT) is talking about the threat Iran poses and that we should bomb Iran forthwith. This much we know: Whatever those madmen are saying, whatever ostensible reasons they are giving for the US having to stay in Iraq, they are not the real reasons. The Brits have been making arms deals with Saudi Arabia. What’s that all about? Are Saudi Prince Bandar (and his family) and President Bush (and his family) now out of love? Or is Middle East oil keeping their romance hot? What kind(s) of sweetheart deal(s) has the US been making subrosa with Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran? Have those important measuring devices that Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance Paul Bremer conveniently forgot to install on Iraq oil wellheads before fleeing Iraq now been installed? Or is the smuggling of Iraq oil still going on? Will keeping US military bases in Iraq forever and ever sufficiently line the pockets of Republicans with oil revenues? Who knows? But one question I can answer. Was Saddam Hussein as corrupt as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Paul Bremer, Paul Wolfowitz, General Petraeus, Ryan Crocker, Robert Gates, James Dobson, Erik Prince, et al? The answer is NO, not even by half.