Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush's Iraq Plan: Goading Iran Into War

By Trita Parsi, IPS News. Posted January 13, 2007.


President George W. Bush's address on Iraq Wednesday night was less about Iraq than about its eastern neighbor, Iran.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Trita Parsi

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

President George W. Bush's address on Iraq Wednesday night was less about Iraq than about its eastern neighbor, Iran. There was little new about the U.S. strategy in Iraq, but on Iran, the president spelled out a plan that appears to be aimed at goading Iran into war with the United States.

While Washington speculated whether the president would accept or reject the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, few predicted that he would do the opposite of what James Baker and Lee Hamilton advised. Rather than withdrawing troops from Iraq, Bush ordered an augmentation of troop levels. Rather than talking to Iran and Syria, Bush virtually declared war on these states. And rather than pressuring Israel to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the administration is fueling the factional war in Gaza by arming and training Fatah against Hamas.

Several recent developments and statements indicate that the administration is ever more seriously eyeing war with Iran. On Wednesday, Bush made the starkest accusations yet against the rulers in Tehran, alleging that the clerics were "providing material support for attacks on American troops."

While promising to "disrupt the attacks on our forces" and "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," he made no mention of the flow of arms and funds to Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda from Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Instead, he revealed the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and of the Patriot anti-missile defense system to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to protect U.S. allies. The usefulness of this step for resolving the violence in Iraq remains a mystery. Neither the Sunni insurgents nor the Shia militias possess ballistic missiles. And if they did, nothing indicates that they would target the GCC states -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The deployment of the Patriot missiles can be explained, however, in light of a U.S. plan to attack Iran. Last year, Tehran signaled the GCC states in unusually blunt language that it would retaliate against the Arab sheikdoms if the United States attacked Iran using bases in the GCC countries. Mindful of the weakness of Iran's air force, Tehran's most likely weapon would be ballistic missiles -- the very same weapon that the Patriots are designed to provide a shield against. A first step towards going to war with Iran would be to provide the GCC states with protection against potential Iranian retaliation.

Perhaps the starkest indication of an impending war with Iran is Washington's recent arrest of Iranian diplomats in Iraq. Around the time of President Bush's speech, U.S. Special Forces -- in blatant violation of diplomatic regulations reminiscent of the hostage taking of U.S. diplomats in Tehran by Iranian students in 1979 -- stormed the Iranian consulate in Erbil in northern Iraq, arresting five diplomats. Later that day, U.S. forces almost clashed with Kurdish peshmerga militia forces when seeking to arrest more Iranians at Arbil's airport.

These operations incensed the Iraqi government, including its Kurdish components that otherwise are staunchly pro-Washington. "What happened ... was very annoying because there has been an Iranian liaison office there for years and it provides services to the citizens," Iraq's Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshiyar Zebari, who is himself a Kurd, told Al-Arabiya television.

The Bush administration has justified the raids -- including the arrests of several Iranian officials in December last year -- on the grounds that evidence is collected on Iranian involvement in destabilizing Iraq. But if the purpose is intelligence gathering, it would make more sense to launch a simultaneous mass raid of Iranian offices rather than the current incremental approach that provides the Iranians forewarning and an opportunity to destroy whatever evidence they may or may not have in their possession.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, bush, iraq

Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Triangle -- The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States" (Yale University Press, 2007).

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

Advertisement
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:
Iran... Meh
Posted by: Jordon on Jan 13, 2007 12:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not too happy with Iran ever since they blamed Canada for having a spy ring in their country (of course we did! You don't think that we would just ignore a potentially nuclear power who has vowed to wipe another country, Israel, who happens to be prone to overreaction in the first place, off the map!?). And killed one of our journalists. Fuck Iran. Maybe that Iranian nutjob president and Bush can battle to the death... and kill each other. Two wrongs would make a right.

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

» RE: Iran... Meh Posted by: KarlaElisa
» Well said! In addition, Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Iran... Meh Posted by: Jordon
» RE: Iran... Meh Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Iran... Meh Posted by: markusmark
» RE: Iran... Meh Posted by: pingoo
» I agree. We certainly Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Bizarre Deadly Dance
Posted by: Kafwood on Jan 13, 2007 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's crazy-making to watch the war with Iran unfold without being able to derail it. This has been coming for over two years now. Americans don't want this war - hell, they don't even want Bush anymore. But the waltz to war goes on.

So Israel will nuke Teheran and the US will come to its aid and further destabilize the Middle East. The Neo-Con push for the expansion of the resource & currency wars is moving from wet dream to bloody consummation. Nuclear fallout will poison the people, the land and the water. We're so good at wrecking things that I'm sure the mission of creating another failed state will be accomplished in a matter of weeks.

But we need the oil - and we need to stop the Iranian oil bourse. Like any junkie, we'll kill to get our fix and lie to ourselves about it.

Democrats who haven't the courage to confront the nazi-like aggression of the neo-conservative agenda, who step into their plans with limp appeasement strategies, are simply their dancing partners.

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

» RE: Bizarre Deadly Dance Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Wouldn't that be a little late? Posted by: oregoncharles
» PAUL FOR PRESIDENT: KUCINICH FOR VP Posted by: poppop_schell
» What really makes me angry Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: What really makes me angry Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: What really makes me angry Posted by: amazed again
» RE: Bizarre Deadly Dance Posted by: b4upoo
» RE: Bizarre Deadly Dance Posted by: Knowmad
Wider war is imminent
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 13, 2007 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has claimed in the past that the best and probably only opportunity to reshape the Middle East and rid Iran of itself is while he is President. Of course, his Israeli masters and American NeoCons (The Israel Lobby) have been wanting America to wreak more havoc and destruction against nations Israel is prone to attack themselves by "going it alone" as they are fond of saying. God forbid anyone should want peace. That would not fit into Israel plans to widen its still undefined borders and its transfer of millions of unwanted Palestinians out of their homes and away from their property.
One must love Democracy to appreciate Israels struggle - I say that with toungue in cheek - and Americas 5 sided war corparation has designs for manifesting unheard of levels of death and destruction upon the world. The worst has yet to come. Peace, unfortunately, is a far a way as the dark side of the moon.

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

» In addition Posted by: WhuThe?!?
midwestblue
Posted by: midwestblue on Jan 13, 2007 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that AP, Gallup, Opinion Research, etc., should begin to ask the question: "Would you support the impeachment of George Bush? Dick Cheney?" I don't suppose it will be asked for a while, though. Perhaps the time will come--after Bush gives the orders to attack Iran. This is all so depressing. I thought the Dems would be taking to the floor and demanding accountablitity. They don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation--or they choose not to understand.

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

augmentation vs. escalation
Posted by: HomerScarborough on Jan 13, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was an interesting article, but I could not help but notice that in the beginning of the article the author adopted the term "augmentation" as used by Secretary Rice when she denied that the administration was "escalating" the Iraq conflict, and desired only to "augment" the troops. The term, "augmentation," sounds less objectionable than the more proper term, "escalation." As others have pointed out in the past, those in the administration are masters at defining what they do in terms that are much more acceptable to the American people than is the reality of their actions. They have already managed to convince the press that abortion rights should be referred to as the "right to life" (who is in favor of death and against life?), rather than "a woman's right to choose." Of course, since the press loves sensationalism, they adopted the more confrontational term. When are we going to stop letting the administration (and the press) get away with it?

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

» RE: augmentation vs. escalation Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» Will "we" include you? Posted by: Beck
it takes a stronger hand to build
Posted by: nor cal surfer on Jan 13, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
than to tear down.

Bush and Co, for all their fascist victories, will be judged by history as some of the weakest in our species.

running a close second will be all those who supported them, failing, obviously, to understand basic fact, nuance, and foresight - perhaps having traded those off for an ostrich's view of next quarter's profit margin, skewed nationalism, or a love affair with symbols (lapel flags and christian cross mosiac backgrounds).

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

Middle East Trap
Posted by: darby1936 on Jan 13, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are about to reap the whirlwind. Its hard to tell which is worse; an idiot running the country or a supine congress or media that allows him to do so.

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

off thread & outlandish
Posted by: larry278 on Jan 13, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is W going after Iran as revenge for their taking over of our embassy & the year long hostage ordeal during Carter's time in office? The probability that W invaded Iraq to 'complete' the job his dad left exists. Taking over a small Iranian diplomatic post & hasseling a few diplomats for a short time has the marks of a W/Cheney operation since it's a matter of too little/too late. It's doubtful if Jimmy Carter will find W's pathetic efforts to 'clear' Carter's name appropriate. Ronnie, the Great Communicator, wouldn't be amused if W tries to 'complete' a job in Iran which W feels that yet another president left 'undone'.
The W/Cheney operation in Iran could make Carter's bungled covert attempt to use militay force to rescue the American hostages held in Iran look like a brilliant/measured response. W/Cheney are, again, proclaiming to their critics, "OK, motherstickers this is f`ck-up.". Many more monumental, costly, deadly blunders await us between now & 1/20/09 if W/Cheney are allowed to remain in office till then.
W/Cheney are bent upon proving the the old saw, "The USA's Constitution was designed by geniuses so that the USA could be run by idiots." is wrong. W/Cheney are well upon their way to eviscerating & discarding the Constitution.

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

» RE: W/C Posted by: maxloen
» RE: W/C Posted by: larry278
Pat Buchanon:
Posted by: rwa on Jan 13, 2007 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"What Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian "networks" are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.

And should this scenario play out, what would Hillary, Biden, Kerry, McCain, Giuliani, and even Pelosi and Obama do? Hail Bush as a Churchill."

http://antiwar.com/pat/

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

» RE: Pat Buchanon: Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Pat Buchanon: Posted by: rwa
you may bomb but you can't win
Posted by: hennep on Jan 13, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saddam learnt that Iran is no cake walk, an attack will mobilise all Iranians against the agressor and remember that about 50% of Irans population is of age 16< 50 and willing to fight (yes that inculudes the women). Iran could wipe out Americian forces in Iraq, read up on the Iran-Iraq war and you will see that they don't mind losing a few million soldiers to protect thier country.
Europe is much more pragmatic as we are nearer and in the direct firing line unlike the American homeland, shia Iran unlike thier sunni counterparts (think of them as Catholic v's Protestant) have not gone around blowing up Americian bases and embassies, you may bemoan thier system of Law, but Saudi Arabia often Publically beheads people, keep school children trapped in burning buildings as they wern't covered up enough to be decent to be outside the school room, a true friend will point out thier friends follies but America demonises Iran and let Saudi's get away with it and even give stuff to keep the oil flowing.
We live in dangerous times, the PNAC wants to own/control all sources of natural resources just for corporate America no matter what and will do anything to acheive it, they lied to go to Iraq to fulfill thier agenda and may will probally do itagain.

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

rjm
Posted by: rjm on Jan 13, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all its shortcomings, Iran is a democracy. bush's obviously intended escalation into iran represents a shift from a phony war on terror, to a phony war against democracy.

how many other democracies does bush intend to assault?

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

IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY----or TURN THE GUNS AROUND
Posted by: Jayzer on Jan 13, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article simply underscores the need to impeach Bush & Cheney and accept no excuses from the Democratic party leadership----either they get the process working and justice is done or we should urge those in the military to disobey illegal orders. Because I do not really believe that chanting and carrying signs is terribly effective against a regime committed to violent solutions, I believe that we need the aid of those with military training and equipment and that we should turn the guns around---away from the Iraqi and Iranian peoples and train them on the junta in the White House and their allies. I'm completely serious----arrest them at gunpoint and if they resist, shoot them. If the neocons want a long war, then let it be here.

I do not question the premise that nonviolent protest and resistance is morally superior, but when survival is at stake morality doesn't really mean much anymore. The longer we wait to face this dilemma, the harder it will be to resolve it.

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

Why Do War Attacks Suddenly Stop for Three Days Following Announcement of Every New Bush Policy on I
Posted by: rwa on Jan 13, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hassan El-Najjar, Aljazeerah.info


For the third consecutive day, the main corporate media units in the US-EU have not published news about the US war in Iraq, no attacks on US forces, no so-called Shi'i-Sunni sectarian violence or civil war.

Readers can check the main media units of the Zionist Empire (AP, Reuters, CNN, Fox, BBC, etc.) to see that they are abiding by this total absence of war coverage.

What's going on?

In fact, it has become a pattern for observers to record and analyze.

Everytime President Bush announces a new policy or plan in Iraq, news coverage of the war would not include any attacks for two or three days following the announcement. Al-Jazeerah has documented that before in red headlines, attracting readers' attention to this fact.

I propose the following two explanations for this strange phenomenon.

First, the war could be still going on, in its two directions, Iraqi resistance attacks on US and US-Led Iraqi forces and US-Led forces counter attacks on the resistance and its supportive population. However, the news control headquarters of the Zionist Empire withholds war news coverage in order to control the minds of people in the US-EU to think about nothing except the new Bush Iraq policy thrown into them. The objective is planting the new policy in the minds of people, so they accept it, or at least be quiet for another year or two until a new policy is invented, and so on and so forth.

Second, the war attacks could have stopped completely, which means that there's no news to cover. This means that the main corporate media units are innocent and they have no role to play in controlling the minds of people in the US-EU in favor of the US-led invasion of the Arab and Muslim worlds.

But a more serious question arises: Why would all war attacks stop suddenly whenever President Bush announces a major policy or a plan for the US war in Iraq?

Is it possible that leaders of the Iraqi resistance take a break to study the new policy, and during the period of study they order a halt in attacks?

Unlikely! Simply because the Iraqi resistance factions are not united and don't have a chain of command and control leading to one person on top issuing the order of a halt in attacks.

Is it possible that most of the halted attacks are those perpetrated by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior's death squads, and the death squads of the militias affiliated with the Maliki government?

Most likely! Simply because it's a matter of command and control issue, which is a characteristic of governments, including the US-backed Iraqi government.

Are we then looking at a war, which is totally controlled by Washington, i.e. "Controlled Chaos"?

Maybe!

Why?

Is war a goal in itself?

Maybe!

It benefits the oil industry, the military-industrial complex, and most important it benefits Israel by destroying Arab and Muslim states one after another.

Anything positive at all from this phenomenon?

Yes. I think we need a lot of these plans, how about two plans every week, if they lead to a halt in attacks.

Maybe this way, innocent Iraqi civilians be saved from the original blood bath plan, the neo-con Zionist dream of permanent war, or permanent "creative destruction."

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

» RE: Money Posted by: Ripcord
Iran: Taunted, Bullied and Backed Into a Corner by Bush
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 13, 2007 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Iranians are figuring it out. First of all, and as far as what negative comments the Iranian President made about Israel, remember, many, if not most, Israeli PM's and MP's have called for the virtual extermination of Arabs and the Palestinians in the Middle East many times over. Of course, this little tidbit has never been reported much on the US news, just the Iranian President getting spun up a bit about Israel. Next, the Iranians don't want nukes but America is backing them into a corner. There will be 160,000 troops (at least, more if you count the Special Forces and the Mercs) next door in Iraq, and Bush saber rattling. The Israeli's will accept nothing more then total elimination or extermination of the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza. Bush and Israel are demanding a pro-US, demasculated, de-Muslimized, government in Iraq. The perfect previous example being the USA installed Shah of Iran. So, Bush and Israel are backing Iran into a corner. They want to use any pretext for an invasion.

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

This should be monitored and followed thru on.........
Posted by: ekipnrut on Jan 13, 2007 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following is the lead in to a Democracy Now segment
broadcast on Thursday January 11, 2007. The entire
interview is posted on the DN site:
If this is genuine...these men and women GIs in Iraq
like Sgt. Cantu need our unflinching support.
I think the idea is to present the 1,000 or so sigs on the
Appeal for Redress to Congress on MLK Day, Monday 1/15/07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In an Democracy Now! exclusive, we go to Iraq to speak with Army Sergeant Ronn Cantu who is serving his second tour in Iraq. Cantu recently signed a petition to Congress - known as an Appeal for Redress - calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. He says, "Everything we do here is on the defense. Any troops increase over here - they will just be more sitting ducks, more targets." [includes rush transcript]

The Appeal for Redress will be delivered to Capitol Hill next week. Sgt. Cantu is a member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War. He started the website forum soldiervoices.net to give soldiers a forum to speak about the Iraq war. He joins us on the phone from Iraq.

* Sgt. Ronn Cantu, serving second tour of duty in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW...This post is about Sgt. Cantu...NOT about GD
Amy (alleged) 'Gatekeeper' Goodman. ;o)

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

IRAN IS SAFE... IRAN WILL NOT BE NUKED BY AMERIKA
Posted by: xbj on Jan 13, 2007 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very second Cheney gives the final go-ahead for the Israeli false-flag attack that will act as the "trigger" for the "retaliatory" nuking of Iraq, China will pre-emptively launch massive history-making undersea earthquakes, one off La Palma in the Canary Islands that will wipe out the entire East Coast, and one off the Pacific that will wipe out the West Coast. As well as set off every major volcano and earthquake fault in the US, simultaneously, including the super-volcano caldera at Yellowstone. America will never know what hit it, and the nuking of Iran will be postponed to be replaced, instead, with an immediate all-out nuclear retaliation upon China, who will respond with all of their nukes, RETARGETED to not be wasted on coastal cities already destroyed, the second the US's are launched. As well as nuclear bunker busters targeted on ALL underground military installations at Las Vegas, in Colorado, and elsewhere. After the US arsenal is empty, Russia will kick the dying corpse with several of their nukes, insuring the death of Nazi Amerika, forever.

So don't worry about Iran... Iran survives, intact. Not a scratch.

And Israel will become VERY overcrowded with every American troop fleeing Iraq and the Gulf.

Hope they're ready for the hordes.

And most probably, within the next two months. Maybe one.

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

WHAT TO DO
Posted by: Melvin on Jan 13, 2007 4:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If & when Bush authorizes the bombing of Iran what are you in the USA going to do about it?? He is after all YOUR leader. You did after all ELECT him. WTF are you going to do????
We in the rest of the real world do not have the resources to stop him; after all you ,the USA, do spend more on defence or should I call it attack than the next twenty nations put together. So far I see little opposition to the madman BUSH within the USA .

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

» One small correction Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: WHAT TO DO Posted by: jmp3954
» RE: WHAT TO DO Posted by: Melvin
» RE: WHAT TO DO Posted by: Dboy
» RE: WHAT TO DO Posted by: Jayzer
bush the warrior king
Posted by: willymack on Jan 13, 2007 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our prezdint is out of his numbskull. He never did have much of a mind-or personality-as it was, but, now, he's certifyibly crackers and belongs in the laughing academy. If that's what it takes to head off another tragedy-this time in Iran- then,let's call the men with the nets.

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

Breaking! Our Armed Forces
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 14, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Breaking! Our Armed Forces
by Evan Frisch

For decades, conservatives have railed against liberals as "weak on defense," content to let U.S. military readiness decline to dangerous levels. Such accusations over the nation's military readiness, in personnel as well as equipment, have proven pivotal in numerous elections. Many progressives still have to learn how to express their views on security in more compelling ways, but we can no longer let conservatives remain unchallenged on their security credentials.
In light of this week's announced escalation, conservatives must now be challenged to prove where their loyalties lie, with Bush or with our armed forces, breaking under the strain of his failed policies.

As George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute explored in our recent book Thinking Points (Chapter 6), conservatives regard security as the use of force, while progressives view security as protection. To make sure that our ports, our infrastructure, and our troops are protected is part of the progressive understanding of security as protection. Bush's policies take the conservative conception of security to its absurd conclusion. It emphasizes the use of force to challenge threats and potential threats to the exclusion of other tools, such as diplomacy. Secretary of State Rice or other officials are dispatched to shore up support for military action, not to broker political compromises that would make military action unnecessary. Even providing adequate body armor, part of the progressive concept of protection as security, is not a priority to this administration.

Read the rest of this article at http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0113-21.htm

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

The Little Dictator; the two-bit "gunslinger."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 14, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it always the case that those who have never fought a battle themselves are the first to create battles for others to die in?

President Bush had his daddy call in favors so he could fly his little obsolete jet around Texas while serving in an air unit that was notorious for hiding out rich people's kids from going to Vietnam (and he even went AWOL from THAT!). He never faced an enemy, never was sent to war, and so has no idea what war is like.

It's easy for him to invade Iraq, and now to probably attack Iran; what does he care? He won't be going, won't be in danger of dying. And, judging by how he blew up frogs and shot his little brother repeatedly as a teenager, he doesn't care if other people's kids die either; just as long as he can play "tough guy" and swagger around as a faux "leader." The man's a psychopath and should be removed from office – along with his alleged concubine, CONdoleezza Rice and that bloated tumor attached to his ass, Dick Cheney. America cannot afford to spend another two years on the road to destruction.

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

The 20,000 Soldier Joke
Posted by: b4upoo on Jan 14, 2007 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is what Bush's new notion of sending twenty thousand soldiers into Iraq. That small number can hope to do no good at all and reflects the same lousy thought processes that we saw in the Vietnam War.
First, we need to fight the anti American movement across national borders. It is not as simple as Iraq and maybe Iran but involves other Arab nations as well. Completely cleaning up Iraq will accomplish nothing at all as the ranks of terrorists and militants will reappear the moment we relax our armed forces.
It comes down to this : We are either willing to field an army of roughly 750,000 operating in full war mode or we must use high technology weapons of mass destruction. Frankly we are no longer geared to produce a massive conventional army nor do we have the rail ways or ships to transport all of those troops and endless supplies. Frankly I doubt the American economy could stand up to supporting a massive conventional war as well.
That leaves is with one option. A bomb them back to the stone ages type of attack eliminating Iraq completely can serve to defeat Iraq but it also offers the potential to end terrorist actions across national borders as nations become aware that we are willing to totally destroy any nation that permits, allows or sustains terrorists in any way. I am the first to admit that this is a brutal and wicked idea but frankly being effective at war usually involves being the most wicked kid on the block.

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

Choices
Posted by: veive on Jan 14, 2007 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Osama was given a choice between having his very own nuclear arsenal or having George W. Bush has his opponent, which do ya think he'd pick? The nukes could only kill a few million infidels and piss off the whole non-Moslem world. With Bush in office for two more years, chances are the entire world will be converted to Islam. Every day's new "war" reports trigger a whole lot of cheering and high-fivin' in Osama's hideout.

Rumor is that one of Osama's lieutenants proposed a plan to assassinate Bush. Osama shot him immediately saying, "The fool would have me disarmed."

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

The frightening thing
Posted by: hitchhiker59 on Jan 14, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The administration may see this one as a win/win. If they provoke Iran to war they get what they want, and if Iran makes any concession or reaches out to the EU, they'll call it a win in the same way Reagan's brinksmanship "defeated" the Soviet Union (rather than internal corruption and the failure of oppression).

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

IRAN WON'T NEED TO TAKE ANY "BAIT"
Posted by: w_m_bear on Jan 14, 2007 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kudos to Trita Parsi for picking up on Bush's slipping in that one-sentence line about Patriot Missiles. He is virtually the only commentator I've read to do so, and this is unfortunate. Because those Patriots are much, MUCH scarier when you start thinking about them than any troop "surge" in Iraq (which, after all, "only" increases our presence in Iraq to about 5-6K troops over what it was in 2005.

Here is the likely scenario with the Patriots. Consider the answers to the following questions: 1) Where did we mostly place Patriot missiles the last time we deployed them to the Middle East? Remember the backstory of Patriots vs. SCUDs during the Gulf War? And Saddam launching many of his SCUDs at ISRAEL, a few of which got through the Patriot shield and did minor damage? 2) Now why would Bush want to station Patriots in ISRAEL again? It wouldn't be because the Israelis have an operational plan to take out Iran's nuclear sites, now would it?

I do not mean to make light of what seems to me the following strong and scary possibility, merely to call attention to it. Bush will be placing those Patriots IN Israel in anticipation of Israel's raid on the Iranian nuclear sites and Iran's retaliation for that raid. Once the Patriots are in place, Israel will then have the green light to go ahead and bomb as, basically, the PROXY of the U.S. (The reason we need a proxy is detailed in current headlines about the Democratic Congress requiring a declaration of war to support any attack on Iran.) Here is how the scenario is likely to play out. Once the Patriots are in place, Israeli F-16s will stage a raid on Iran's nuclear sites. Iran WILL retaliate by launching missiles against Israel (honestly, who could blame them?) These missiles will (hopefully and mostly) be shot down by the defensive Patriots, AT THE SAME TIME BRINGING THE U.S. INTO THE WAR WITH IRAN in a "defensive" stance. Thus, Bush will have the figleaf of not actually having started war with Iran himself but merely "defending" U.S. forces against an Iranian attack. THEN we will bring up the heavy bombers and "finish the job" the Israelis started. Sound like the kind of plan the assholes in charge routinely cook up?

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

Kurt Nimo:
Posted by: rwa on Jan 14, 2007 8:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ROBBER BARON –> ENDGAME
Posted by: Hal on Jan 15, 2007 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Control of petrocarbon reserves under the Mid East and Eurasia theatres has been a geo-strategic wet dream of the corporate crime mob that owns Washington and its MSM carny parrot for over fifty years.

Iran was always in the crosshairs.

911 cover-up was the criminal pretext and phony “war on terror” is the burglar mask for taking what parasite robber barons have wanted for their own private ends. And of course, all the gruesome carnage paid for at public expense in blood and treasure.

Big Oil and cartel bank oligarchs never had it so easy as the MSM backed every crooked call and every blood money move out of a string-puppet DC complex.

Knitted brows and handwringing out of Washington has all the validity of amateur night Kabuki. From before 2003, virtually everyone with any clue knew there were no WMD or any real reasons to go crashing into Iraq other than the transparent Big Oil grab planned (see UNSCOM’s Scott Ritter, et al).

Now it’s limited hangout time as “leftist” good cops in Murtha, Pelosi, Clinton, and Hagel, Warner, etc on the “right” talk about “redeployment” and “draw-down” when they mean to keep only slightly less troops there than BushCo bad cops that pretended to create the “necon” front inspired mess all by their lonesome.

Upshot: the entire debate is a well-cooked sham.

If this were anymore obvious a cesspool fix, it would have to be labeled so in bloody neon.

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

IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY ANSWER!
Posted by: DKern on Jan 15, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In order to end this maddness, we have to impeach Bush and Cheney. There is no other way.

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

Stop the War Now. Drive out the Bush Regime!
Posted by: World Can't Wait on Jan 15, 2007 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This President must be driven from office by a mobilization of the people. It is the only way that his whole program of war, torture, and theocracy will be repudiated.

Join us on January 27th, around the country, in refusing to accept the terms set by this President and a complicit Democratic Congress.

Impeachment on the basis of war crimes, torture, and crimes against humanity.

...because the World Can't Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime!
www.sfbaycantwait.org
www.worldcantwait.org

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

New "New Pearl Harbor"
Posted by: johndoraemi on Jan 17, 2007 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BIG "SACRIFICE" GAMBIT
Crimes of the State


In chess, it is sometimes preferable to sacrifice a high value piece, your queen, bishop, rook or knight, in order to manipulate your opponent into giving up a desired slice of real estate.

Pay close attention to Bush's new strategy, and to his repeated mention of the word "sacrifice", for it may hold the key to understanding what is about to unfold.

A real-world chess "sacrifice" gambit could go something like this.

1. US forces attack the Shi'ite militias in Baghdad.

2. The Shi'ites throughout Iraq retaliate and cut off US supply lines.

3. The US army is overrun in many places suffering huge and catastrophic casualties (the "sacrifice").

4. This stunning defeat causes another "helpful wave of indignation" [1] across the "homeland," preordaining a new US response.

5. The US regime will reinstate the draft, and it will use nuclear weapons in a first strike against Iran, who will be linked to the Shi'ites of Iraq, and thus provide the pretext for this next all-out war.

The pretext to attack Iran becomes the goal of this "sacrifice" ploy, and the scores of dead US troops will be the lives sacrificed (by the criminal and twice unelected Bush regime) in pursuit of this end.

CONTINUE

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

Bush Tawks Fernie Cause he's Brayne Damabged
Posted by: 2shane on Jan 18, 2007 11:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is a brain damaged scumbag junkie.... in a 3 piece suit.

That's whie he, he, he, um ah talks funni.

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