Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 





Was Iraq War a `Blunder' or Was It Treason?
Sunday, 21 January 2007 12:24
by Dave Lindorff

New Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), is calling President Bush's invasion of Iraq a "stark blunder" and says that his new scheme to send 21,500 more troops into the mess he created is just digging the hole deeper.

I wonder though.

It seems ever more likely to me that this whole mess was no blunder at all.

People are wont to attribute the whole thing to lack of intelligence on the president's part, and to hubris on the part of his key advisers. I won't argue that the president is a lightweight in the intellect department, nor will I dispute that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and that whole neocon gang have demonstrably lacked the virtues of reflection and humility. But that said, I suspect that the real story of the Iraq War is that Bush and his gang never really cared whether they actually would "win" in Iraq. In fact, arguably, they didn't really want to win.

What they wanted was a war.

If the war they started had ended quickly with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that would have served their purposes, at least for the short term. Bush would have emerged from a short invasion and conquest a national hero, would have handily won re-election in 2004, and would have gone on to a second term as a landslide victor. But if it went badly, as it has, they figured he would still come out ahead. He would be a wartime president, and he'd make full use of that role, expansively misdefining his "commander in chief" title to imply authority over the Congress and the courts, to grab power heretofore unheard of for a president.

Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.

This, I suspect, was the grand strategy underlying the attack on Iraq.

If I'm right, there may have been method to the madness of not building up enough troops for the invasion to insure that U.S. forces could occupy a destroyed Iraq and help it rebuild, method to the madness of allowing looters free sway to destroy the country's remaining post-invasion infrastructure, method to the madness, even, of allowing remnant forces of Hussein's to gather up stockpiles of weapons and even of high-density explosives, so they could mount an effective resistance and drag out the conflict.

So many apparently stupid decisions were made by people who should clearly have been too smart to make them, from leaving hundreds of tons of high explosives unguarded to cashiering all of Iraq's army and most of the country's civil service managers, that it boggles the mind to think that these could have been just dumb ideas or incompetence. (L. Paul Bremer, for instance, who made the "dumb" decision about dismantelling the Iraqi army, prior to becoming Iraq's occupation viceroy, had headed the nation's leading risk assessment consultancy, and surely knew what all the risks were of his various decisions.)

I mean, we expect a measure of idiocy from or elected leaders and their appointees, but not wholesale idiocy!

This disaster has been so colossal, it almost had to have been orchestrated.

If that's the case, Congress should be taking a hard look at not just the latest installment of escalation, but at the whole war project, beginning with the 2002 campaign to get it going. Certainly throwing 21,500 new troops into the fire makes no sense whatever. If 140,000 of the best-equipped troops in the world can't pacify Iraq, 160,000 aren't going to be able to do it either. You don't need to be a general to figure that out. Even a senator or representative ought to be able to do it. So clearly Congress should kill this plan.

Since it's not about "winning" the war, it has to be about something else. My guess would be it's about either dragging things out until the end of 2008, so Bush can leave office without having to say he's sorry. But of course, it could also be about something even more serious: invading Iran.

We know Bush is trying mightily to provoke Iran. He has illegally attacked an Iranian consulate in Iraq (an act of war), taking six protected consular officials there captive. He is sending a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf, and is setting up Patriot anti-missile missile bases along Iran's western border. This buildup has all the earmarks of a pre-invasion. All that's needed now is a pretext--a real or faked attack on an American ship, perhaps, ala the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that launched America into the Vietnam War.

The way I see it, either way the president is committing treason, because he is sending American troops off to be killed for no good reason other than for aggrandizing power he shouldn’t have, and/or simply covering his own political ass.

Treason is the number one impeachable crime under the Constitution, and we're at a point where Congress is going to have to act or go down in history as having acquiesced in the worst presidential crime in the history of the nation.
More from this author:
U.S. Military Has Killed Up to 238,000 Iraqi Civilians (15907 Hits)
A just-released study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, published in the current issue of the prestigious British medical journal The...
Time for Truth and Consequences (12611 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff   The Bush administration, losing the war in Iraq, has come with a "new" strategy: setting a timetable for Iraq's...
Let's March in January! An Impeachment Call to Action (15157 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff   I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that, barring some incredible act of criminal cynicism such as the...
Why Nancy Pelosi Has it Wrong on Impeachment (12687 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff   Forget her "Pledge," She Took an Oath: Why Pelosi is Wrong on Impeachment House minority leader Nancy Pelosi...
Kerry and Bush: The Joke's on Us (11516 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff   There are so many things to say about the John Kerry gaffe, it's hard to know where to start. Just the idea of...
Related Articles:
Dear Dubya: The Iraq Solution! (13477 Hits)
Hey there Georgie Boy, long time no speak. From what I’ve been hearing, you’ve had a rough time as of late. As always, I’m here to help. So...
Why Bush Smiles: Victory is at Hand in Iraq (15085 Hits)
Despite George W. Bush's ostentatious bucking up of the Iraqi government yesterday, it is very likely that there will indeed be an...
The New Media Offensive for the Iraq War (14466 Hits)
By Norman Solomon The American media establishment has launched a major offensive against the option of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. ...
Bush's "New" Iraq Strategy Revealed: More Troops, More War (10318 Hits)
by Chris Floyd    Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation...
Women and Children First: The Lessons of Iraq (9945 Hits)
Women, kids, old, sick most at risk in Iraq, says Reuters. To which we say: Ho-hum.  Old news. We've killed hundreds of thousands of these...

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments (5)add comment

a guest said:

Congress' position on Iraq
is clearly untenable. The only way they can win an honest debate on the merits of their position is to have no debate.

None of them are talking about Ted Kennedy's sensible proposal to revoke the authorization for the use of force. They claim they're afraid they'll be accused of not supporting the troops in Iraq. And in fact they WILL be accused of refusing to support the troops in Iraq. But that accusation couldn't stick if they bring the troops home at once. Democrats could then say: "Yes, we're refusing to support the troops in Iraq any longer. We're going to bring them home and support them here."

Congress has the power. The only rational excuses they can muster for failing to use their power are cowardice and corruption. Nothing else makes any sense whatever.
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

Two points
Not a bad effort, but the long war idea of the Busheviks and PNAC is to keep the defense industry dependent (military Keynsianism) economy going through continuous war. Thus should the Iraq War peter out, another will be needed to replace it. This is the purpose of creating a Muslim enemy to replace the communist enemy. The latter also has the advantage justifying war in resource rich countries where American corporations can benefit, and non-favored, non-American corporations can be excluded. In this sense, control of the resources is paramount.

The other point is to undermine the constitution and democracy at home. All administrations since Carter have engaged in this, but the big push has come with this Bush administration. This attack on the constitution and democracy is treasonous. But it supported by both parties, as both expect to benefit from it
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

You're Exactly Right, Dave
There is no doubt in my mind that you're on the right track...

... and none of this would have been possible without the attacks of 9/11 ...

... which is why they did 9/11

more treason.
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

Another Gulf of Tonkin incident mighty soon
smilies/angry.gif You're right. It is obvious that there will be a Gulf-of-Tonkin incident within the next couple weeks. The American public must be alerted to this and urged to respond to it in a positive way. It must be anticipated by the vast majority of Americans. smilies/cry.gif
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

War = War Profits. Fog of War = Criminal Cover Ups.
The war had nothing to do with self defense, and everything to do with defense spending. The war had nothing to do with controlling oil and everything to do with manipulating the oil market and attaching a war risk premium to the price of oil.

The Iraq way had nothing to do with retaliation for 911 and everything to do with diverting the discussion away from the facts of 911. As cabinet level ex Bush administration officials have said, and I quote, ".. they [the neocons] blew the towers to smitherines.". Who blew WTC 7?

Lets not limit our investigations of crimes to Iraq - lets go back to 911 - that was a crime where 3000 Americans paid with their lives so those liable for the "too" big and under "leased" WTC towers would not have to pay 15 Billion dollars to destroy them (condemened several years ago for asbestos). In the WTC7, before it burned, were case documents related to the loss of 2 Trillion dollars by the DoD.

How convenient.
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger



Top 123