Kristol, Wolfowitz and Cheney: When deciding what to do about
Iraq, why ask them?
As Iraq Reerupts, 'Media Mad Cow Disease' Takes Hold in U.S. (News, Switzerland)
"It is clear that Wolfowitz doesn't
blame himself, Bush, or Cheney, but the withdrawal of troops by Obama. ... However,
no matter what these liars and political scam artists claim: It was the
falsified 'evidence' about weapons of mass destruction, the Bush Administration's
almost moronic war planning, the utter lack of a concept in the aftermath of military
victory, and the mad fantasies of omnipotence harbored by Bush and his cabinet,
which have led us directly to the situation today."
A U.S. playing card with the visage of former Iraq vice president Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, vice chairman of Saddam Hussein's Revolutionary Command Council and the highest ranking member of the Saddam regime to remain at large. He has reportedly appeared in Mosul, the Baath Party's old stronghold, to claim the Iraqi presidency for himself and his party.
Sometimes,
one wishes it were unnecessary to write, "I told you so." Nevertheless,
current developments in Iraq prove that every
terrible premonition can indeed become reality. Or as was said at this juncture
in 2007, "one really can create irresolvable problems."
Whoever
today looks with horror at developments in Iraq and blames the withdrawal of
American troops under Obama, forgets that this bomb was ignited long before.
Specifically, by the bungler of Washington George W. Bush and his troupe of "we
can do anything" dilettantes.
This
author doesn't know how many readers still remember, but according to George W.
Bush, the second Iraq war was supposed to be "a cheap, clean war"
that (according to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz)
would "pay for itself." The fact that this same Wolfowitz,
of all people, was interviewed on NBC's
legendary current affairs program Meet
the Press last weekend, where he was asked what should be done in Iraq,
borders on media mad-cow-disease. It is clear that Wolfowitz
doesn't blame himself, Bush, or Cheney, but the withdrawal of troops by Obama.
ABC permitted
another Iraq arsonist, Bill Kristol, a
neo-conservative political analyst and commentator who helped launch the
neo-conservative movement which propelled Bush and his friends into political office,
and who gained notoriety for his catastrophic predictions on Iraq ("The
war will last two months"; "American and allied troops will be welcomed
as liberators in Baghdad"; and one month after the fighting began, "The
battles in Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably") -
to blame Obama for the disaster he himself supported.
However,
no matter what these liars and political scam artists claim: It was the
falsified "evidence" about weapons of mass destruction, the Bush Administration's
almost moronic war planning, the utter lack of a concept in the aftermath of military
victory, and the mad fantasies of omnipotence harbored by Bush and his cabinet,
which have led us directly to the situation today involving ISIS terrorists.
Neither is it a coincidence that former a general of Saddam Hussein, Izzat
al-Douri, was the principal planner of the ISIS
offensive.
Al-Douri was one of Saddam's fellow travelers. Like Saddam, he
comes from Tikrit, and was one of the people involved
in hoisting the Baath Party, and therefore Saddam Hussein, to power in a
putsch. During the revolt against U.S. occupation and after "permanent"
victory, Al-Douri was already one of the primary
organizers. With the Syrian unrest under his belt, he has now found allies in a
fanatical army of Sunni fundamentalists, while the Baath Party is apparently
celebrating its resurrection. Al-Douri has been
wanted for years and is the King of Clubs in the infamous card game the U.S. Defense
Department played with the most-wanted members of Saddam's regime.
The
risk is thought to be so great, that Americans and Iranians are actually
talking about what can be done to combat it. Yes, there is talk- although categorically referred to as
impossible - of cooperation against ISIS between Teheran and Washington.
Bush's
plan had been to drive quickly to Baghdad, eliminate the Hussein regime, pacify
Iraq, and export large amounts of oil from a happy Mesopotamia, while
simultaneously weakening first Iran, and to some degree Saudi Arabia. Iraq was
to serve as an example for the surrounding countries. Democracy and capitalism,
based on the American model, would then spread all by itself, relegating the
Islamic fundamentalism of al-Qaeda to the past. Anyone who sees the results of
these downright insane, unrealistic ideas, comes to the sober realization that
Bush achieved none of them: A former Hussein-faithful is, with his barbarian
horde, about to conquer a large part of the country in a brutal campaign of
vengeance. Virtually no oil is being exported, Iran is becoming increasingly
indispensable as a power in the region, and the Islamic fundamentalists are
stronger than ever - and as a result of seizing large quantities of cash in
Mosul, are even richer.
It
is said that one can learn from mistakes. Here at least, that doesn't seem to
be the case, because if the people who made these mistakes now claim - with
eyes wide open - that what is needed is more of what triggered the whole disaster,
then we can only assume that the learning curve runs directly alongside and
parallel to the Y-axis.
But
declaring this a disaster and
pronouncing who is to blame is easy. Finding a solution, on the other hand, is
much more difficult. The problem for countries like Iraq, with borders drawn with
the unrestrained arbitrariness of colonial administrators, is that it doesn't
actually exist as a nation. The dissolution of several ethnically more-or-less
cohesive nations (like the former Yugoslavia) would be the logical consequence.
But who is willing and able to propose or even demand this?Violent resistance is inevitable, not least
because such plans are well known in the area and feared as plans of Washington.
For
years now, reports have haunted Arab media with maps of a Middle and Near East rearranged
along ethnic lines, as was proposed in an article by
a U.S. lieutenant colonel [Ralph Peters]. These so-called "blood
borders," would be redrawn, in some cases creating new nations and
dividing or eliminating old ones.Would
such a reorganization result in more peace and less conflict? Who knows?But the road there - and the claim that
current conflicts in Syria and Iraq are a first step toward such a new order, appear
to prove that in this case, too, the region would be immersed in rivers of blood.
Whatever
developments may lie ahead, the putrid odor of the fruits of a botched putsch -
shaken from the tree of history by George W. Bush and his
lapdog Tony Blair, and left behind in Iraq linger in the air, will
continue for a long time to come.
