Bush Is Escalating His Iraq Occupation To Move "Forward" Against Iran

January 11, 2007


Iran and the Devil Next Door

"If we were to leave before the job is done, if we were to fail in Iraq, Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons." --Bush, today, in remarks during visit with military personnel and families at Fort Benning, Georgia.


The most pernicious part of Bush's declaration last night wasn't his predicted determination to move forward with his bloody occupation. The most dangerous mischief was, by far, his strident attempt to shift blame for the violent resistance to his consolidation of power in Iraq, to the sovereign nation of Iran. Amazingly, Bush cited Iranian support for Shia "death squads" as a rationale for his accusations without any mention at all of his own role in the arming and training of these rogue elements - many of which began as militias under control of the new regime.

Bush made the accusation and rationalization that an al-Qaeda attack on the mosque in Samarra in early 2006 was the reason the Shia militias became independent execution squads, dispensing their brand of justice wherever they engage their Sunni rivals.

"Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause," Bush claimed last night, "and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked." he said in his primetime address.

"Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads," Bush said.

As Bush, last night, proposed an escalation of America's involvement in the middle of Iraq's civil war - including sending 4,000 of the 21,000 additional troops to the al-Anbar province to battle "extremists" in the Shiite communities there - it should be remembered that it was our own forces who inflicted the first damage on a holy site in a siege in Najaf in 2004 when they were trying to dislodge al-Sadr and his Mahdi army who had taken refuge around the Imam Ali shrine. It should also be remembered that it was Sadr and his followers who joined with Sistani and allowed the new regime, headed by Shiite and Sadr ally, Maliki, to assume power.

Now in Iraq, under the pretext of fighting al-Qaeda, Bush intends for our troops to re-enter cities like Fallujah and Ramadi and confront the anti-American Shia forces. Bush challenged Maliki to act against his Shiite allies and provide him with Iraqi troops to help with his escalation, or take the blame for whatever chaos and unrest the bolstered U.S. force stirs up with their muckraking.

"If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises," Bush warned, "it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this," Bush said.

After sacrificing the resources and humanity of our nation's defenses for almost four years to install and establish, to fight and defend a Shiite-dominated regime who has openly curried the favor of the very Iranian government Bush is now demonizing, Bush wants that same Iran-friendly regime to provide forces to attack and suppress the heart and soul of their very existence in Iraq and in the region. It was the Maliki regime who, earlier this year, made a very public trip to Iran to meet and bond with Bush's Iranian nemesis. It was the Maliki regime that our soldiers were killed and maimed defending, who defied the interest of the U.S. and forged a security agreement with the objectionable Iranian regime.

It's more than remarkable for Bush to now complain about Iranian influence among the Shias in Iraq after his invasion removed the only existing wedge against their influence when Saddam's puppet dictatorship was taken down by his fickle U.S. benefactors. It's all the more amazing to hear Bush accuse Iran of sponsoring Shiite death squads when it was our own military who initially armed and trained them as recruits for Iraq's army and police forces, and who tolerated them for months and months -before, during, and after the staged elections - as they terrorized their Sunni rivals and those factions opposed to the new Shiite-dominated regime.

Secretary of State Rice today added her voice to the chorus of administration overtures to war against Iran. "I don't want to speculate on what operations the United States may be engaged in," she told a Senate committee, "but you will see that the United States is not going to simply stand idly by and let these activities continue," she said.

Now, under the pretext of concern for the victims of these government-affiliated death squads vigilante justice, Bush wants to move into these Shia neighborhoods with our military forces - into Sadr City - and wage another false offensive against Iraqis to further his expansionist ambitions against Iran. There is no outside influence aiding and encouraging Iraqis to violence which comes anywhere close to the role Bush has played with his manufactured militarism. Iraq is Bush's battleground of choice for his contrived "war on terror." We're "fighting them there . . ."

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge," Bush told the world Wednesday night. "This begins with addressing Iran and Syria," he said.

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq," Bush claimed. "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. 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."

Once again, Iraq has been set up as a surrogate battlefield against yet another one of Bush's "enemies" as he unilaterally constructs an artificial wedge between the Maliki regime and its neighbor and ally, Iran. It's not at all cynical to wonder what Bush's strategy actually was in fostering the radicalization and strengthening of the present Iranian regime with the removal of Saddam - and, the sacrifice of over 3,000 American lives and countless innocent Iraqi lives to create an Iran-friendly Iraqi regime - only to turn around and try to militarily face down the very alliance he sponsored with his invasion and occupation.

It no wonder that there's still chaos and unrest in Iraq, because, Bush is clearly obsessed with stoking it for his ultimate intention to provoke Iran into a self-serving confrontation against our forces. Today, it was reported that U.S. forces attacked an Iranian consulate and arrested several members of the staff who the military claimed were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces."

It serves Bush in his attempt to shift blame for the violent resistance to his bloody Iraq occupation to some faceless Iranian influence. But, Iran is not occupying Iraq; Bush is. Iran has not armed and trained the very individuals who make up the bulk of the Shia death squads; Bush has. Iran is not threatening anyone outside of their own borders; it's Bush who, in fact, threatens Iran with our military forces amassed next door.

Bush is attempting to manufacture yet another distraction from his failure to capture the individuals in Afghanistan who he claimed were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. This time he's looking to distract attention, as well, from his failure to subdue the Iraqi population underneath his newly installed regime. Unfortunately, the citizens in the region caught in the way of Bush's imperialism will bear the ultimate consequences of his reckless meddling, despite his vain justifications that he's 'liberating' someone or the other or 'protecting' us from some greater evil than his own vain aggression.

"In the long run," Bush told the world Wednesday night, "the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region," he said.

So far, however, Bush has only contributed various expressions of his original bludgeon of 'shock and awe' to the shell-shocked residents of Iraq caught in the way of his 'liberating' and 'protecting.' According to the Iraqi Health Ministry, 22,950 people were killed in Iraq in 2006. The United Nations says that over 28,000 civilians were killed in the first 10 months alone of 2006. The Lancet medical journal reported in October 2006, that over 600,000 people were killed in Iraq following Bush's 2003 invasion.

There's no evidence that our forces have 'protected' anyone in Iraq, much less, 'liberated' anyone from violence; or made lives more secure from violence there, or here at home where Bush's concern supposedly originates. Bush's latest attempt to tie our nation to another military assault on yet another sovereign nation, is evidence of his own bloodthirsty ambition - more than it represents any necessary defense of American interests, or anything else Bush might claim as he pushes forward. The nation and the world should not allow him to expand his Iraq failure into Iran. We should not allow him to continue.



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

:kick:

. . . absolutely no comment.

I'm just going to pop out . . . for a while.

Bush, "sending 4,000 of the 21,000 additional troops to the al-Anbar province to battle "extremists" in the Sunni communities there.

also have to change this passage to:

. . . under the pretext of fighting al-Qaeda, Bush intends for our troops to re-enter strongholds like Najaf and Samarra, and they will inevitably confront the anti-American Shia forces who reside there.

don't know where that went. :shrug:

thanks, Megahurtz :)

If he gets to or not . . .

Very disturbing.

:scared:

Iran Pivotal Factor in Proposed New US Approach in Iraq

Friday , 12 January 2007

In his address Wednesday night, President Bush said he wants to boost U.S. troop strength in Iraq to quell sectarian violence. But he also made clear that the United States holds two of Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, to blame for fueling the clashes. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports from Washington, the Bush administration is anxious to head off what it perceives to be an Iranian bid for greater influence in the region.

As the violence in Iraq has escalated, so, too, has the rhetoric from Bush administration officials about Iran's alleged support for insurgents there. In his Wednesday speech, President Bush directly blamed Iran as well as Syria for providing help to Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq.

After the president spoke, reports emerged of an alleged U.S. raid on the Iranian consulate in the city of Irbil in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Iraqi officials said six people were detained in the raid and computers and documents were confiscated. Officials in Tehran angrily denounced the raid and summoned the ambassadors of Iraq and Switzerland - which looks after U.S. interests in Iran because of the lack of diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington - for an explanation.

A U.S. Defense Department spokesman says the building raided in Irbil was not a consulate or government building and that he would not connect this event to the president's call to stem the support from Iran and Syria to the insurgents in Iraq.

But, speaking Thursday morning, General Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Iran is clearly involved with the insurgents in Iraq, and U.S. forces will go after those who are arming them, but only within Iraq.

While there was no threat, in the speech, of direct military action against Iran, Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a fellow of the MIddle East Institute and director of Middle East studies at Syracuse University, says the administration's rhetoric is becoming more bellicose.

"Frankly, they smell a bit of adventurism as far as I'm concerned, and one is worried about the repercussions of these things," Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a fellow of the Middle East Institute and director of Middle East studies at Syracuse University said. "I think it's intended to send a signal to the Iranians. But, as you know, in that region of the world things can quickly develop a momentum of their own and get out of hand and the law of unintended consequences will take over."

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=42098

K & R

as always . . .

- Ron

:kick:

...extra troops will be used to protect oil resources and the private contractors there to exploit them. Just like we authorized 20 billion for rebuilding yet only 1 billion was used for that purpose -- the rest went to security-- many of these troops and others could be used to protect a 400 billion dollar govt investment and billions more in profits for private industry.

Iran is the next step, I believe, but remember that the only facilities protected during the invasion were the oil facilities and offices. And you'll remember that Bush's lone comment to Iraq people right before invasion was an admonishment not to torch the oil fields. And Cheney's secret energy task force with Iraq maps on the wall....

Once Iraqiis learn that US and British global corps will be taking their oil, think there will be some sabotage? Does it really make sense that we're going to have a surge (our fifth?) so that we can go door to door in Baghdad looking for insurgents or sectarian warriors (whatever that is)?

Not sure that action against Iran will involve troops on the ground. Airstrikes, yes. But first...oil.

and they skirmish on the border all of the time with Iranians, so . . . they could make some sort of deal where they would be surrogates for Bush's aggression in exchange for access to the oil fields.

They could be used to provoke Iran into acting against Iraq, giving Bush pretext for airstrikes or whatever military muckraking he chooses.

Here's an excerpt from Lehrer's discussion with Walter Russell Mead, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Even Brzezinski thinks these nuts are 'detached from reality' and fears that their main goal is Iran and Syria:



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/zbmead_01-11.html

". . . these signals, these hints, and some of these actions raise the risk that, if the benchmarks are not met, instead of leaving, we'll widen the war, because we'll claim that the Syrians and the Iranians are causing us the difficulties."

important stuff. thanks again.

Fuck it's about money...invade for money, provoke Iran for money, keep the war going for MONEY!

Wake up!

the military industry depends on adversaries to allow them to justify manufacturing the weapons and weaponry our Congress appropriates with our tax dollars. The rest at the top need the adversaries to justify their made-up roles as protectors and liberators, and to keep themselves and their families on the dole of their industry benefactors. It is all about money, but, it's also a way of life for these leeches. They perpetuate these divisions and conflicts to keep themselves in their manufactured positions of power and influence. I'll bet Bush actually believes he deserves it all. He's the exception. He's never wanted for anything that he's had to sacrifice himself to obtain. He's definitely living the lies he tells. He's certain that he's ordained to his muckraking.

This occupation and the events surrounding it have enabled Bush to posture and project his nonsense in several dangerous directions, the consequences of which won't always involve a direct cash payoff, nonetheless, exacting its heavy price from everyone involved; except for Bush and the rest who spend their time stirring the pot with their militarism and their provocations. It's a way of life for them these days.

It's far from being simply "ironic"...it's was purposely created...Bush hides behind being a "war time" president, people are asked to support a "war time" president, Bush breaks laws and decides what laws if any (none actually) he will obey because he's a war time president...

Yet Bush purposely created the war under false pretenses and lies, in order to become a "war time" president (and Bush wants to maintain that the title of "war time president" until he leaves office)...It suits ALL of Bush's illegalities and imperialism perfectly because of BushCo's planned paradox... And the media, nor the people ever mention any of this, and if they do, they might call it at best, "ironic"...No, a paradox that was planned from the beginning by BushCo...for legal protection, for profit, and yes, for power!

in relation to the current powers that be that are calling the shots for the US -- plans which fit nicely, btw, into any power and wealth gain that the warmongers and war profiteers -- the Military Industrial Complex, et al -- benefit from, and will continue to benefit from. Despite the warnings from imperialist-globalist-realists like Zbig and the old Poppy Bush crowd of Baker, et al, Junior seems to be holding steadfast to the neocons' plans, which have long advocated restructuring the Middle East with their stated targets being Iraq, Iran, Syria and, ultimately, Saudi Arabia.

Consider the plan created for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 by a study group called "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" with the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Group members included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.

Here are some excerpts:



http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

their career

SOMETHING is up with Bush and Iran, no matter if he has all of the means and support to move forward. I think by spotlighting his ambitions, we can stifle that move forward.

Nothing, in my view, is served by looking at all of his options and just concluding that he's not prepared, or too weak to make a move. He's made clear his ambition for a military confrontation with Iran and he should be loudly and regularly called on it.