Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush's Fiascos in Iraq

By Ray McGovern, BuzzFlash. Posted August 7, 2006.


The White House and Fox News Channel are still trying to convince us that things are going just fine in Iraq.
Advertisement

The word does not require an "E," but the world desperately needs one-E for EXIT from the march of folly toward wider war brought on by plural US policy blunders: in Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon, for starters, and now threatening to spread to Syria and Iran. Fortunately, Webster's does allow the insertion of an "E" and that's precisely what we must do now. We need to make a prompt exit from the policy fiascoes that have brought violence and chaos to the Middle East.

If we do not look beyond the carnage of the last few weeks, weigh the reaction of others in and outside the region, and reflect on Washington's role in precipitating the violence, I fear there will be no exit. A brief review may be instructive. Who led our march into this modern-day Valley of Death?

Ideologues and Amateurs

Let's begin with the new people and policies that President George W. Bush brought in with him when he took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Who urged on him what Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings calls "the huge mistake of giving Israel a blank check?" Who played the leading roles in encouraging Bush to let slip the dogs of war on Iraq?

Honors for the leading role in the category of fiasco goes, ex aequo, to Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld-the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" described by Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (ret.). At an award ceremony, the cabal no doubt would offer copious thanks to other key actors-first and foremost, to ideologues Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The Oscar for best actress in a supporting role goes to Condoleezza Rice.

It was five and a half years ago that Rice was formally initiated into the neo-conservative brotherhood as an auxiliary. Her most important service was greasing the skids for the brothers to try to shoehorn into reality their ambitious but naive dreams of using "preemptive" war to ensure total US/Israeli domination of the Middle East. At the new administration's first National Security Council meeting on Jan. 30, 2001, then-national security adviser Rice stage-managed formal approval of two profound changes in decades-long US policy toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. Thanks to Paul O'Neill, confirmed as Treasury Secretary just hours before the NSC meeting, we have a first-hand account.

The neoconservatives had already gotten to the new president, for he began with the abrupt announcement that he was ditching the policy of past presidents who tried to honest-broker an end to the violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Rather, the president declared that the US would tilt sharply toward Israel. Most important, Bush made it clear that he would let then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon resolve the conflict as he saw fit. The US would no longer "interfere."

Powell: Dead Man Walking

O'Neill described Secretary of State Colin Powell as "startled" at hearing this. Powell warned that US disengagement would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army. But Bush shrugged dismissively, adding, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things." Just seven weeks later with Sharon in Washington, the president again shocked those present when, out of the blue, he turned to him and said, "I'll use force to protect Israel," according to Sheryl Gay Stolberg writing in today's New York Times.

After his requiem for the decades of US sweat and blood expended on the effort to work out a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the president turned immediately to Iraq. Rice led off by reciting the received wisdom of the neocons (I still wonder how many of them actually believed it) that "Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region." Whereupon, at her request, then-CIA director George Tenet displayed a grainy overhead image of a factory in Iraq that he just happened to have with him. Tenet thought the factory "might" be associated with a chemical or biological weapons program, but no such association could be confirmed. No problem. The conversation immediately turned from this typically Tenet-ative "intelligence" to the question of which Iraqi targets to begin bombing. Remember: this watershed meeting of the NSC took place more than eight months before 9/11 and more than two years before the invasion of Iraq.

O'Neill, just inducted into the cabinet but not into the neoconservative brotherhood, was understandably nonplussed. He says he found it all quite curious and left the NSC meeting convinced that, for reasons never fully explained, "getting Hussein was now the administration's focus."


Digg!

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
OIL
Posted by: autonomie on Aug 7, 2006 12:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To improve upon this article, one might consider the key point of US foreign policy in the region -- oil. Don't ever forget the why.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OIL -- It's money! Posted by: metamind
War in Iraq is eactly what they were looking for
Posted by: farhada on Aug 7, 2006 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to disagree with the article here.

The neo-conservatives look at Iraq, Iran and Syria as the main enemies of their only respected country on earth :ISRAEL.

That was may have been for control of the oil, but the main reason for this war was to destroy the only strung Arab country with potentials for be a treat to Israel.

After that, it is time for Syria, as Israel has started the preparation toward it, and then Iran.

This is not the war of profit, but a war of domination. Maybe some people will make money here, but the goal and the main goal is a colonial act of control of those who are not willing to bow in front of the leaders of the new world.

This is a war of total destruction of what ever Israeli supporters see as a danger to the power monopole of Israel in the region.

This war will go on for ever, with the result of creation of a new middle east, with small countries, with no power who fight with each other for ever, and some more puppet regimes with no power to say anything and living their pathetic life like Saudi royal family and the kingdom of Jordan and so called president of Egypt.

Democracy is just a slogan to create chaos and destruction and force EVERYONE to submission in the region. Or else, they will be treated like Lebanon or Iraq.

Best regards,
/Farhad Abdolian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hold on to your pants....
Posted by: Captainmagic on Aug 7, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US and Iraqi soldiers are engaging Moqta al Sadr Medhi militia in rageing gun battles in Bagdad.....is this it...all leave cancelled rush brigades to Bagdad at the expense of Mosul etc...I think the proverbial is about to hit the fan..(or did that happen in 2003)..watch for the condi rumsfield dash...who are Iraqi soldiers on their days off.....ah..Shiites..hello..get the Exit signs up..

In another not to distant land one of the reasons Israel blows up Lebanese infrastructure, Bridges roads and the like, is not to prevent the people moving about but more so, now that Syria has withdrawn it is to prevent Syria from storming back in..ditto.

Captain OUT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeach, impeach, impeach!
Posted by: davesilvan on Aug 7, 2006 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope everyone understands then, that we must vote for democrats this fall and then relentlessly badger them into impeaching not only Bush, but Cheney and Rumsfeld as well, since Congress are the only people who can impeach the president.

And I don't want Santorum representing me in PA, either.

All of today's politicians make me sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Impeach, impeach, impeach! sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Impeach, impeach, impeach! Posted by: willymack
» Mr Posted by: Mycos
» don't get mad, get even Posted by: coldeye
Ray, Ray, Ray... Don't you get it yet?
Posted by: Chevaliere on Aug 7, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course they want a fiasco in Iraq... that's the plan! How else to keep people occupied with killing each other and distracted from rioting against their masters in the face of Global Climate Change and Mass Starvation? Didn't you get the memo, Ray? You know, "Secret Pentagon Report" as reported in the UK Observer where we read:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'


Even though the article suggests that this is an "embarassment" to the Bush Administration, I think that we can perceive the entire "War of Terror" as the U.S. response to this report. If we look carefully at the policies of the U.S. and Israel, we can see that they obviously know what is coming upon the Earth and they are making sure that they and their Pathocratic pals are at the top of the heap when everything shakes down.

The masses of humanity have to be distracted from this, of course, or they might demand that provisions be made for their survival as well. It is to that end that 911 was perpetrated and the so-called "War on Terror" was created. After all, how better to solve the problem of the hungry masses that might rise up against their Masters than to make sure that as many of them are occupied with killing one another as possible? And how better to do this than to create religious and ideological divisions? It also serves to eliminate extra mouths to feed, so DO expect the use of biological warfare - it's an efficient way to wipe out vast numbers of people while still leaving the infrastructure intact.

As to WHO gets to be selected to survive, it would be wise for everyone to get and read Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes and "911: The Ultimate Truth" - both available from QFG Publishing - in order to know who is who and what is what.

Finally, for regular updates on this situation, read Signs of the Times regularly. This is one of the very few groups that realized what was going on and has been discussing this issue since 1998. Only now are such views becoming more mainstream mainly due to the fact that it is getting too obvious to hide.

Meanwhile, the killing continues and will accelerate massively in the next two years. Take that to the bank. We need to figure this out FAST. The time period may be much, MUCH shorter than 20 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Aug 7, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually I think they are trying to convince themselves

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fox
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 7, 2006 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fox News Channel ain't nothin' but a propaganda outlet for fascists who want to rule the world by nuking everyone who stands in thier way. There will never be peace and justice in the world until there is complete disarmament of nukes in every terrorist nation that has them for the world's worst terrorists are those nations with nukes and the worst of the worst terrorists are in the USA for we have the most stupid genocidal nukes which make all decent people have the pukes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fox Posted by: wawa
» RE: Do you know what a fascist is? Posted by: gonzoskismet
Ray
Posted by: AlienSlave on Aug 7, 2006 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ray,

When we took the oath and entered the service, was it not to protect the Constitution with all of the means at our disposal? Is there such a thing as true retirement, does the craft and experience suddenly come to an end? Isn’t there now greater freedom unhindered by Managed protocol to use all means at our disposal to defend the Constitution?
AlienSlave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ay Posted by: ericthefool
» RE: Ray Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: ay Posted by: willymack
» RE: ay Posted by: rhinojos
» RE:Ray Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: ay Posted by: rhinojos
More Biscotti-Latte Punditry.
Posted by: Jesse Cristo on Aug 7, 2006 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows that McGovern was just grandstanding at that press conference with Don Rumsfeld. It's easy for these snide, conceited types to criticize the leadership after the fact especially when a belief in their own moral superiority is the first false premise. Naturally, such arguments - those based on unrealistic worldviews, no real knowledge of the facts on the ground and sympathy for the enemy - will appeal to a certain type of individual - the Coffee Shop Liberal. McGovern's rhetoric fits like a cog in little minds which are filled with the empty theory of arrogant professors and the hate speech of the Blame America First crowd. Naturally, I'll be condemned for saying this. Senile ex-analysts and anti-war Iraq veterans are gods walking among you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Biscotti-Latte Punditry. Posted by: elmertwittle
» YOu are the enemy Posted by: chief of okeefe
» RE: More Biscotti-Latte Punditry. Posted by: scott balogh
"reshaping the entire region."
Posted by: rwa on Aug 7, 2006 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what the war on Iraq was always about. Oil? Come on, if we wanted oil we could invade Canada or Mexico. Much easier to subdue. Now, why do we allow a government to rule us whose primary motivation is serving zionism?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Regain control of Baghdad"?
Posted by: badkitty on Aug 7, 2006 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the weekend of July 29-30, on the 29th on CBS Evening News, I heard the phrase "regain control of Baghdad". Well, I was floored. Then on the 30th, I actually heard someone on Fox News say "regain control of Baghdad". My husband has been asking for months when Tet would come. The ugly end to the Iraq fiasco may actually be in sight (not "the light at the end of the tunnel"!). I will again convey my beliefs to my representatives, but at least two of them, Boxer and Lee, were in the right place to start with. Feinstein, I don't know, and we voted for her anti-war opponent in the primary... Bush never answers back, but Frist always does. Dole's answers are bizarrely ridiculous. Ray, your analysis is always the best. I really appreciate everything you and Scott Ritter do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE IRAQ-IRANIAN FIASCO: A BUSH ADMIN STUPIDITY OR INTENTIONAL STUPIDITY
Posted by: PGC on Aug 7, 2006 5:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fiasco started from....day one.
Let us assume the Bush Admin had all the intel . They knew the eschatology of the Iranian Mullahs. I certainly didn’t know this. None of our vaunted “news” corporate services gave us a heads-up on this. The intel told the Bush Admin that the Iranians were seeking nuclear weapons . In fact , Clinton sold them some blueprints. Yes , you don’t have to blink, you eyes saw correctly. See
Guardian, Thursday January 5, 2006 article by James Risen.

Hence common sense tells you: that type eschatology and nukes is a bad mixture if peace is your real objective. In 2002 Iran made some overtures. The Bush Admin should have accepted Iran's overtures of 2002, get a smoothing-over going on, use its technology to ferment a secular coup d'etat, THEN do Iraq, and do it properly. There are mullahs in Iran who want a State-Mosque separation.

Why didn't the Bush Admin do it this way if they had the intel? I suspect Bush Admin was/is mesmerized by the AA. No, not Alcoholics Anonymous but Armageddon Anonymous. Conflict of interest, and AA won out. Or they could be just stupid, or both.

What to do now? Without a separation of state and religion coup d'etat in Iran , which some Mullahs want, we are in DEEP stuff. And now, that coup d'etat is much less likely to happen. Anyone anti-mullah will be branded as pro-Israeli/US. Still try for the coup d'etat and drop their AA stuff.

The logic seems, fake intentional stupidity because of AA. Some further tea leaves? Read my post “Team loading the dice” with Clinton-Bush.

http://etisoppa.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Further to that... Posted by: Mycos
Oil, Money, Zionism, PNAC, Pax Americana.....
Posted by: Mycos on Aug 8, 2006 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are all right. None of what any of you say is exclusive of the others comments for this debacle/disaster. It is a war started by the whisperings of Zionists (Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al), war-profiteers, (Dick and Lynne Cheney, Bush, Rice, the Carlyle Group) , and chicken-hawk-militarists like Bolton and Rumsfeld who see Pax Americana (PNAC) as a dream that is worth the dead and crippled they will never have to see become one of their own kin. Hopefully they are wrong about that, and death takes these monsters one way or another.....any manner of death is justified...at least the way history will see it, if not US law at the moment. True patriots are looking to kill these people.

America is dying in front of our eyes. Bush is tearing up the Constitution because terrorism is supposedly a larger threat than the combined might of the nuclearear armed Soviet Bloc and Red Army. No rights were deemed necessary to rescind during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a time when there were enough nuclear warheads aimed at the US to obliviate it, yet now a bunch of nut jobs have talked you into letting you do it now to protect against a bunch of cave-jumping nut-jobs whom the CIA just gave up even bothering to look for.
Does that make any sense whatsoever...other than an attempted coup of the USA by the neocons? They HAVE to GO!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, no, no Posted by: Mycos