Bush Is Waiting for An Iraq Solution That Will Never Come

By Larisa Alexandrovna, AlterNet. Posted December 22, 2006.

I am not sure who it is that The Decider is waiting for, be it Godot or a shaman. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that the US is in a holding pattern with regard to Iraq, stuck on stall while our soldiers and more Iraqis die. Yes, this administration is waiting for something, but what? I don’t think we will ever really know, but more and more people will die while this President stalls in his holiday-adorned mansion, having never seen combat and having suffered no personal loss in this war. Disregard for the urgency of time comes easily to those who are gambling with other peoples’ lives and other peoples’ money.

The plan to plan a plan:

The President claims he is listening to different voices of opinion, but anyone who has watched this arrogant, self-serving administration should know by now that the only voices Bush listens to are the ones that come with cash.

I don’t buy for a moment that this President is weighing all options and listening to all of the experts. Nearly four full years into this inferno we call Iraq, there has yet to be a well reasoned, thoughtful assessment of the situation or an adjustment to address conditions on the ground.

What thoughtful planning was done prior to the invasion of Iraq? That is to say, outside of painstakingly fabricating evidence to mislead a grieving nation into war -- what actual planning took place to secure Iraq after the invasion? What planning did this administration do to make sure our military had the resources it needed? Even now, our soldiers lack the necessary armor and equipment, and yet we are to believe this President is remotely serious about developing a winning plan?

What attention was paid to the aftermath of the invasion and securing the peace of a nation with three fully autonomous factions jockeying for power, ready to kill one another over control of the country? Who had the brilliant idea to dismiss the Iraqi army, still in possession of their weapons, so that military contractors could then "secure" Iraq? What prompted the idea to take jobs away from Iraqis so that Halliburton’s no bid contracts had a place to play out?

What genius decided that creating a palace-like US military base in Iraq took precedence over ensuring that the Iraqis had water and electricity? If this is planning of any sort, it is a plan for deliberate and catastrophic failure. And at each stage there was a milestone that would mark some sort of mission accomplished and victory delivered, only to allow for more stalling and more misery.

Even after the Iraq Study Group delivered its bipartisan edict of "blame it on Rumsfeld and save face," the President decided he would mull things over through the holidays, having first agreed to follow the group’s recommendations when he thought they would be different, somehow.

What is obvious now is that the removal of Rumsfeld was not a sign of a real commitment to change direction in Iraq. It was nothing more than yet another stalling tactic, which is why the news was delivered after the election, not before. The nomination of Robert Gates to Secretary of Defense appears also to be nothing but stagecraft to silence the angry public, because Gates, no matter his view, is still bound by the chain of command. If the leadership says "stall," then Gates can only stall or resign.

What are they waiting for?

The President’s latest tactic now being floated is to deploy 30,000 troops to Iraq, which will no doubt serve to add more dead bodies to the death toll but little else.

How many dead bodies will it take before Congress says that stalling for Godot is not feasible (always knowing of course, that it has never been ethical)? Or perhaps a better question to ask is to whom is this administration beholden and for whom has this entire travesty of foreign policy been devised? I believe that the intended winner was always meant to be the Saudi regime, not the US, nor the Iraqi people. Ironically, the true victor has turned out to be Iran, something that no doubt disturbs the house of Saud greatly.

If the Saudis are in fact the country for whom we are fighting a proxy war with Iraq, then it stands to reason we cannot leave until we neutralize the Iranian threat to our benefactors. Perhaps this is really why this administration is stalling. It has failed several times over to successfully launch a military attack on Iran. The WMD argument does not seem to be working as well this time around in frightening the US populace into yet another war. The anti-Israeli rhetoric and Holocaust denial, too, don’t seem to be budging the US masses into supporting an attack on Iran. So the Bush administration awaits the delivery trick that might work to quiet the House of Saud and keep them from delivering on their blackmail of a full US economic meltdown.

I know that there are some that believe Israel is guiding the US misadventure into hell, but Israel is a client state who does what it is told. I have never found a convincing argument that would explain how Israel, whose very survival turns on US backing, would have the power to lead America into total suicide. It is true that the most visible faces of a pro-war policy towards the Middle East are tied to Likud, but Israel too needs to protect the House of Saud, because it is America’s benefactor. It serves US interests well to play the Jews against the Muslims. Such machinations have been going on for centuries. But anyone who can see farther than the day to day perspective should be able to see that a fully destabilized Middle East does not benefit Israel, nor does a rise in terrorism benefit Israel. It is already in a precarious position and not much is needed for Israel’s full and total collapse when the Middle East fully descends into chaos. The only winner that could have been intended as a result of this mess in Iraq is the House of Saud. Unfortunately, with Iraq failed in such a way as to embolden Iran, the House of Saud will not let the US leave the power structure in such a condition.

While this is mainly my own belief, of course, if we assume that the Saudi regime is calling the shots, then it becomes clear that the US will not be able to leave Iraq until it attacks Iran. Not if the Saudi clan has anything to say about it. Perhaps this is why our beloved Vice President recently ran to the feet of the Crown Prince as soon as he was summoned -- that is, to assure the royal regime that the US will not abandon the House of Saud’s plans? Maybe, just maybe, this is what the US stalls for? Maybe, but if this is the case, then America has long since ceased being anything other than an oil junkie, holding on for dear life to the robes of its dealer.

See more stories tagged with: iraq, exit strategy

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