[Peace-discuss] New admin will widen war

[C. G. Estabrook]

[An article in today's Washington Post by Karen DeYoung may provide one of the 
better prognostications of where the war is going, if read between the lines. 
DeYoung wrote a "sympathetic" biography of the ultimate toady, Colin Powell. (As 
the editor of the News-Gazette asked rhetorically when Powell "proved" to the UN 
that Iraq had threatening WMD, "Would Colin Powell lie to us?") She writes as a 
Washington "realist" (i.e., an anti-neocon), sympathetic to the permanent 
government in DC, now back in charge in all the theatres of the Mideast war. 
So, if read critically, it could be a pretty good guide to current thinking: 
<www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/10/AR2008111002897.html>.] 



...Obama also intends to move ahead with a planned deployment of thousands of 
additional U.S. troops [to Afghanistan].

...Obama's approach [will] be welcomed by a number of senior U.S. military 
officials [the "realists"] who advocate a more aggressive [war there].

...U.S. casualties [in Afghanistan] this year are the highest since [the US 
invasion, because the realist plans are already in place].

...Obama advisers and ... senior military strategists [think] that the Afghan 
effort [sic] under the Bush administration has been hampered by ideological and 
diplomatic constraints and an unrealistic commitment to the goal of building a 
modern democracy -- rather than a stable nation that ... does not threaten U.S. 
interests. [Translation: a democratic Afghanistan -- one that did what its 
people want -- would threaten US interests, which are to control the region for 
its energy resources. Better use a dictator, as the British envoy suggested.]

Obama advisers have emphasized that [there will be no] pulling back on the 
Afghan ground war ... [on the contrary--]

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and [Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff] ... have already planned for a more overt and forceful 
U.S. leadership role in the war, as well as more direct involvement by U.S. 
forces in fighting ... many European officers resent what they see as U.S. 
arrogance.

...Obama ... may have more success than Bush in persuading other [NATO] members 
to increase their fighting forces in Afghanistan...

At Mullen's direction, the map of the Afghanistan battle space is being redrawn 
to include the tribal regions of western Pakistan...

...the incoming administration intends to remind Americans how the fight against 
Islamist extremists began -- on Sept. 11, 2001... [Translation: the new 
administration, like the old one, intends to use 9/11 to justify its colonial 
war in the Middle East -- to repeat the lie that we're "fighting terrorists who 
threaten America," not controlling oil.]

...At the Pentagon, Mullen is overseeing an Afghanistan and Pakistan transition 
strategy and force-structure review by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while Gen. 
David H. Petraeus, the former Iraq commander sworn in last month as head of the 
U.S. Central Command, is drawing up plans for his wider new responsibilities, 
which include Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mullen and Petraeus will remain in place [in the new administration, and the 
Obama people want Gates to remain Secretary of Defense, "to provide continuity"...]

	###