It is getting even sickly funnier how the next ‘wait until this moment (and if you buy this shit you’ll be in Iraq far into the next decade)’ Iraq occupation scam is shaping up, in this case the supposedly hard nosed military report on progress by General Brown-nose Petraeus-
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, will likely testify to Congress about progress in the war on September 11 or September 12, the White House said on Monday. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, speaking on Air Force One headed with President George W. Bush to a summit in Canada, said the hearing date was not related to the anniversary of the 2001 attacks.
Veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer offered a commentary Sunday on the upcoming report from General Petraeus on conditions in Iraq, observing, “When I ask a question and guests start laying out conditions … I know that we’re headed down the old rabbit trail.”
“Excuse me for getting a little suspicious,” Schieffer said, pointing out that “the White House want[s] the general to deliver the report to Congress behind closed doors while Cabinet officers do the talking in public. And suddenly we’re told the general won’t actually write the report, but that his thoughts will be included in a summary prepared by the White House.”
“This is the report the president has said over and over that he will use to decide where we go from here in Iraq,” concluded Schieffer. “Maybe it’s because I’ve been dragged down the old rabbit trail too many times by too many people with something to hide, but this does not sound like we’re headed to a straight answer.”
D’you think Bob? Still good to see bastions of corporate news are beginning to squirm, so in summation-
- written by the Bush administration.
- rubber stamped by the General to give the veneer of objective military judgment for the stupid & gullible and…
- released on 911 anniversary to further imply the invasion is related to the terrorist attacks as opposed to what it was, a long term strategic goal since the 90′s.
And even now we see the emergence of strategies to present the occupation as being scaled down-
U.S. military officials are narrowing the range of Iraq strategy options and appear to be focusing on reducing the U.S. combat role in 2008 while increasing training of Iraqi forces, a senior military official told The Associated Press on Monday.
Ignoring the simple fact that as long as any foreign troops are in the country it is occupied, the people are not free, and will all the year zero extreme neo-liberal laws be removed? Will unions be able to form? Will privatised utilities be brought back into public hands? Who will own the oil and who will get the revenue? Meanwhile the UK military tells Brown time to withdraw there is nothing more that can be achieved-
Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve “nothing more” in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.
Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province – the last of the four held by the British – “will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground”. He added: “Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October].”
Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, “We’ve done what we can in the south [of Iraq]“. (h/t Balkan at Tomorrow, what?)
The military advice is clear, so we’ll be withdrawing as of October? Hey wait a minute this is a war, you put off a decision for weeks causing hundreds more deaths because you won’t recall parliament? Hmm let me guess, we’ll be withdrawing at precisely the moment America tells us to and not a moment sooner. So the schedule of the decision is kinda elastic, because Brown is not the one making it, the organ grinder is. Although one aspect we can affect is to stop Brown/e from screwing over the translators. But October? Yet another ‘wait until this point’ delaying scam, Friedman units of all manner and lengths abound and all that really…, really happens is the occupation goes on. Magicians call it misdirection, look at what I want you to look at not at what I am really doing and the casualty counter climbs inexorably to the next milestone 1 million 1 hundred thousand. And both American parties fake votes and tell us there is nothing up their sleeves however much they bulge with huge permanent military bases. We’re being played people, we are being played.























21 August, 2007 at 10:09 am
Few things demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of our political system than allowing soldiers to continue to die for nothing at all simply in order to follow some bureaucratic/public relations timetable. And these are people who claim to “support the troops”. The occupation should end now and we should be getting our soldiers out.
21 August, 2007 at 11:24 am
I gather all the British troops are doing now is hiding in Basra airport. The occupation isn’t going to end any time soon, but I think there’s a good chance of our lot coming back within the next year or two. What difference that will make to the average Iraqi is unclear. And we’ve always got Afghanistan – three more decades, the man said.
22 August, 2007 at 7:28 am
Yep frolix, like they said about Vietnam, who wants to be the last to die for a mistake, Nixon knew it was lost in ’69 yet they ploughed on.
Depressingly you might well be right on all those Dave, a UK withdrawal will help the US anti-war movement which perversely could be why Brown is ‘encouraged’ to stay in. At the least any major pull out will be left to the next US administration, which circles back to Frolix’s point, all this blood for political game playing. And at the back of that these castle keep bases.
24 August, 2007 at 8:25 pm
The US lost 38,000 troops in the Korean War. Thirty-Eight Thousand lives lost in THREE YEARS.
Since then, the US has kept 40,000 soldiers on the border between North and South Korea.
Was the Korean War worth the losses or not? Is South Korea better off for the US presence?
Has North Korea benefited from its communist leadership?
24 August, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Regarding the Korean War. It was fought from 1950 to 1953.
24 August, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Some South Koreans don’t think so (enduring several right-wing military coups and dictatorships). Also the Korean war was ended by the Eisenhower administration in part because of the increasing protest at home. The reason the Korean ended the way it did its because both the North and the South became proxies for the Chinese(North) and the UN/US (South) so it was not up to them to end the war, since they had after 1951 no real power to fight it on their own (in the conventional sense). Even then the war was (and in many cases still is) a stalemate and the possibility of a new war looms over the horizon, one that the U.S. is ill prepared to fight (only the fact that the ROK forces have become a formidable fighting force is the only real deterrent to North Korean aggression).
25 August, 2007 at 11:24 am
I lived in South Korea for several years and my wife is Korean.
The United States backed a series of nasty dictatorships in South Korea up until they were forced out by popular resistance in the late 80s and early 90s.
Actually the Korean War is kind of an interesting case to discuss. Korea has a very long and interesting history as a single nation buffeted by the more powerful nations around it such as Japan and China. When the Japanese colonial period ended, instead of allowing the Korean people to reconstruct their country as they wanted to, America and the USSR were primarily interested in exerting their own influence over it, dividing it artificially into two.
In the south the anti-Japanese resistance were basically removed by the US and its supporters and a dictatorship was instituted, with a lot of Japanese collaborators involved. It is all very sordid. The Korean War really arose out of America and the USSR splitting one nation into two and propping up their own favoured dictators in each. While preventing Kim Il Sung from taking complete control of the Korean peninsular was, I think, right, the Korean War is not really the great advertisement for America that it is often portrayed as.
After the Korean war the US-backed dictatorships continued up until the popular democracy movement finally managed to remove them from power and the nation is now a pretty stable state capitalist democracy.
South Korea has a very advanced military capability now plus it has a huge number of trained reservists since there is compulsory national service. Large sectors of the population oppose any American military presence in South Korea and there is a large amount of hostility to the influence that America continues to hold over the South Korean government.
25 August, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Great comments from the exceptionally learned blogmig@s that I am privileged to have. Kudos guys.