[Peace-discuss] Bush and old lies.

[Randall Cotton]

It was hard to follow the link below, but I found the article. And indeed,
it's quite interesting and cogent. I'm including the text...

 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at uiuc.edu>
To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 9:49 AM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bush and old lies.


: Some interesting information in this article by Wm. Pfaff of the IHT
: concerning American contacts with the Iraqi resistance:
:
: http://www.latsi.com/latsi/subcategory.jsp?file=20050628tr--v-
: a.txt&catid=1594&code=tr--v
:


BUSH USES SAME OLD LIES TO REVIVE WANING SUPPORT FOR WAR
By William Pfaff
PARIS -- President George W. Bush's patriotic address at Fort Bragg Tuesday
night, swimming amidst uniforms and flags, was proof that the Iraq issue is
slipping out of the administration's control.
The attempt to regain control was made in the president's claim that, in
Iraq, America is fighting back against the 9/11 attacks, which is wholly
untrue. The president himself has acknowledged that the 9/11 terrorists had
nothing to do with Iraq, and Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with
9/11.
The Downing Street Memos now have made it impossible to deny that Iraq's
invasion was a deliberate choice, made for reasons having nothing to do with
9/11. The administration thought conquering Iraq would be easy, and that it
could quickly be turned into a client state and permanent Middle Eastern
strategic base for the United States.
Another reason for the invasion was to obtain influence over Iraqi oil
production and therefore on world oil prices. A third was to overturn what
Israel considered its most dangerous Arab enemy.
There were other reasons, plausible enough in terms of a cold Realpolitik,
but the argument that the invasion was a counterattack on the terrorists was
false.
The Fort Bragg speech attempted to refurbish and re-sell that fantasy, at a
moment of difficult realities. The situation inside Iraq has gravely
deteriorated. American ground forces are battered and, without conscription,
near the end of their manpower resources. The interim Iraqi government has
failed to establish legitimacy in the eyes of the Sunni community, and the
country is slipping toward sectarian civil war.
The president also made an argument many honest men and women accept: that
whatever the cause and course of the war, the U.S. must not be defeated
because terrible geopolitical consequences would follow. (Actually, they
never followed the American defeat in Vietnam; quite the contrary: the
United States shed a terrible and oppressive international burden.)
Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, after a quick trip into the ``extremely
violent and tricky environment'' of the insurgency, wrote in The Wall Street
Journal last Monday that ``failure isn't an option,'' at the same time
conceding that U.S. forces currently ``lose a battalion a month'' in dead
and wounded, victims of insurgent attacks. A battalion is 500 to 800 men and
women.
The latest Washington Post-NBC News poll shows a clear majority of Americans
in favor of fighting on for ``an extended time'' in order ``to stabilize''
Iraq. But this, they say, is because, like Gen. McCaffrey, they believe that
``failure is not an option.''
This is a shibboleth. An option is the exercise of the power of choice. No
one chooses failure. It happens. There is an argument for going to great
lengths to avoid failure. But that can't stop failure when failure is
inherent in the situation. It was inherent in Vietnam, and it is inherent in
the Iraq insurrection.
The U.S. is attempting to impose its will on a highly nationalistic people,
where both majority Shiites and minority Sunnis want Americans out of their
country.
The logical answer to that is to go. The prudent policymaker obviously looks
for a way to go with the least damage to U.S. interests. Such is the
realistic alternative to re-spinning lies told to justify the invasion.
Washington now admits that it has talked with figures close to the Sunni
insurgency. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says ``sure, my goodness,
yeah'' to British and French newspaper reports of these meetings, adding
that we talk to everybody all the time and ``I would not make a big deal out
of it.''
It could be a big deal. The earliest meeting with Sunni leaders in touch
with the rebels broke up on the Arab leaders' demand that the United States
set a timetable for departure.
They were not willing to accept American withdrawal to the four or more
``permanent'' bases being built in remote parts of Iraq, as a U.S.
representative suggested. They were willing to allow major postwar American
investment in the country's oil industry.
At the new talks, on June 3 and June 13, and expected to continue, one of
the American officials is said to have introduced himself as a
representative of the Pentagon, saying that he was prepared ``to find ways
of stopping the bloodshed on both sides and to listen to demands and
grievances,'' which he would convey to Washington.
The Iraqis repeated their demand for ``a guaranteed timetable for American
withdrawal from Iraq.'' It could be one year or five years, but there must
be a timetable.
The followers of Ali al-Sistani and other leaders of the Shiite community
have from the beginning insisted that the Americans must leave. They
overwhelmingly won the December elections.
Both sides want U.S withdrawal. What happens after that is their
responsibility.
The cost of refusing to leave steadily mounts. Thus President Bush appealed
for volunteers for the Army and Marine Corps. So long as present policy
continues, those volunteers will be needed.