McCain, Iraq, and Bush's Third Term

The trap could not have been more tightly woven. On Tuesday, March 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the resignation of Admiral William Fallon, the head of Central Command and the top-ranking military officer in the Middle East.

Fallon was the superior of General David Petraeus. Today, with Fallon gone and Petraeus unresisted, we got the news we knew was coming. The numbers of American troops in Iraq will be maintained at their present level through the election year of 2008.

This announcement will hardly cause a ripple in the protocols of docile support which the mainstream media have followed ever since March 2007: first, take the war off the front page and (so far as possible) out of the range of coverage; then repeat from a great distance the words "The surge is working."

It was commonly assumed (by those who think about such things) that the forced resignation of Admiral Fallon signaled the desire of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush to open a path to bombing Iran. Fallon had always been skeptical about starting another war in the region; he said aloud that a war against Iran "won't happen on my watch"; unlike Cheney and Bush, he trusted the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran more than the latest war blueprints from the American Enterprise Institute. While Fallon was head of CentCom, he worked to muffle the explosive effects of the provocations to Iran that emanated from the Office of the Vice President and its point-men at the Pentagon and in the Senate (Joe Lieberman). Thus, when, in early January, a fractious encounter between Iranian speedboats and coalition warships in the Strait of Hormuz threatened to ignite a war, Fallon, quietly and behind the scenes, talked the fury down. He made sure that even the cable networks came to understand that American ships had never been in immediate danger. He allowed his staff to say this sort of thing happened often in the Gulf.

Yet Iran was not the short-term object when Fallon was asked to resign. A few days earlier, he had publicly declared his view that American troops should start their withdrawal from Iraq. General Petraeus's design for an indefinite prolongation of the surge was subject to Fallon's approval; and Fallon let it be known that he would not approve. Rather, there would be a short pause, and then the first steps of the drawing-down. It was this that got him fired.

The pieces hardly need to be put together. Petraeus told George W. Bush he could not pursue his strategy if Fallon vetoed it. Either Fallon must go, or the surge must dwindle from the de facto permanent policy it now appears to be, and become instead the temporary measure it was originally sold as. President Bush took the point and Fallon was out.

Of course, Iran may be the larger game in view. But the short-term purpose, as always with Cheney and Bush, is also and emphatically political. So long as the surge hangs on and more Americans die who must not have died in vain, the Bush occupation strategy remains the unpleasant but inevitable policy: the thing we have to do. Unless Petraeus is challenged or stopped, the futility of the surge will never be debated. For the mainstream media have been read into the program. Their eyes are shut, their ears are closed, and the words they speak continually are "The surge is working."

Was there also a hidden value for Bush and his chosen successor, John McCain, in the sacking of Fallon to give a free pass to Petraeus? This transition which is no transition puts all the burden of continuing or stopping the war on the next president. But that presents no difficulties to McCain; he wants the war to go on. If, on the other hand, a Democrat is elected who wants to stop the war, he will have to fight uphill against an incantation that says, "But the surge was working!--You!--It was you who lost Iraq!"

This strategy was used with profit in Germany, in the 1920s and 1930s, to help overthrow the Weimar Republic. It was called the "Dolchstoss Theory" (stab in the back). Nothing about the moral history of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and the neoconservatives who commandeered this war from the start can make us doubt that they would promulgate such a theory with relish.

For President Bush, his walking away from (by handing on) the wreck he made of an entire country will only be the last such act in a career of destruction and evaded responsibilities. Remorse and chagrin are beyond him. Yet he knows what it looks like to others; and Petraeus and the surge are the only facade behind which he can retreat into a life of dignified partying and written talks about the religious meaning of democracy.

For the American people, a third term of Bush's war in Iraq presents a graver prospect. Few can take as lightly as the younger Bush the putting to flight of four million refugees, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the degradation of the American army, and the protraction of enormous risks to our soldiers in a foreign occupation whose purpose was always obscure.

The opposition really have no more choice than John McCain. They cannot do half so well as McCain the one thing he can be relied on to do: inherit and maintain the Bush war policy in 2009, and make sure the Iraq war (and perhaps new wars) are still going in 2013. If they want to have a chance, and if they mean to fight off the Dolchstoss explanation which is already eddying in the lower reaches of talk radio and the chambers of the AEI, the opposition must educate the American public about Iraq. Tell how the war began, what the lies were that got us in, the way the strategy miscarried at every stage, and the reasons why the "blunders" of the war are not confined to the scapegoats Bremer and Rumsfeld but permeate a policy that assumed it was right for American soldiers to settle in Iraq. The permanent bases must be brought to the light of public discussion. What are they for? What good, and what harm, can be expected from our evident construction of an American garrison for operations in West Asia?

It has long been clear that the American occupation of Iraq has warped our relations with much of the world. It is long past time that we discussed openly what interests were felt to outweigh the apparent self-interest of the United States.

Comments

[afrozashrafi]

To question the rationale of USA "s Iraq policy will be a foolhardy as the world stands well informed about what exactly the war was and in the manner things were choreographed .Indeed it was the collusion between Rumsfield and later Dick cheney to go ahead with the agenda of the war .Bush was in a great hurry to proceed with his agenda much to the delight and agony of all those who supported it or castigated it . . Now Iran is on the USA hitlist for being too audacious and having coughed up the courage to say no to the USA diktats . Bush did realise that iran is better equipped to ward off the American blues and stick to its stated stance that will infuriate the USA and Iran will be in a position to mobilize the international opinoin .USA does understand that Iraq was a different ball game and it will be difficult for it to go straight away into the war . IRAN has the resources to deal with the threats and understands the reality of the threat also .Dick cheney could have done what he wanted after the fall of Fallon but America had no legitimate ruse to find a situation conducive to its plan . Iraq had shown the world how war is created and how those involved have to pay a premium for it which USA did pay in terms of the waste of currency and human lives .

[wilburbudd]

And I do not beieve that he is a "war-hero.­" WHY? I know lots of guys who went to Vietnam. Most never came home. Because he was in a P.O.W. camp for 6 years? How does that make him a "HERO?" Don't get me wrong; I am glad he made it home, reasonably intact. I'm glad he survived Lyndon Johnson's stupid, dirty little war ("Domino-t­heory... eat me), and I'm glad he served, so I wouldn't have to. That is why we dropped the voting age, and the got rid of the Draft in the first place. But NONE of that makes him a HERO!!! I see no hole where his chest used to be for throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies. I see NO prisoners he helped escape. I see no dead prison camp guards that killed in the night in order to escape. And while I was getting my head kicked in by the pigs in Det. and Chi. protesting that war, all Iwe got from him when he did get home was "coward" yelled in my face. You may have had to face the North Vietnamese, and the Chinese, over there, Mr. McCain, but I had to face the cops, and government, in my own home town, and most cops back then were not afraid to nightstick your brains in, or shoot you in that back, a la Kent State, Ohio.

[wilburbudd]

AN OPEN LETTER JOHN MCCAIN:
Dear Mr. McCain,
I would not have voted for at gunpoint, but now that you have claimed the alleged 'Rev.' Rod Parsley as your "spiritual advisor" I even write you off as a human being. I've seen this clown at work, and if he is a Christian -- really a Christian -- then I'm switching to Buddism. Really. Because this guy perverts the idea of Christianity. I said it about Bush ten years ago, SCREAMED it seven years ago, spell it out now about Parsley and McCain: these two men are to Christianity as bin Ladeen is to Islam.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded for no other reason than to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
That's just great.
And John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide." .

[StanAccrington]

I always want to ask those who mindless drone "The Surge Is Working!".­.. why don't we do more of it, then and totally win this thing, with a free pony for everyone?

Some of the more alert neocons grind their teeth and answer "because we don't have the army manpower to escalate more".

Then I ask them why Bush hasn't fixed that in the last 6 years.

They don't have a good answer for that. (The real reason is that there is not enough popular support among Americans for a draft that would be required). Add to Bush's crimes: starting a war without popular support.

[WretchedEtcher]

If the surge is suppose to be temporary, how can we say "it's working" if we have to make it permanent?

[gezapath]

Try sending a copy of David's post to all of your email contacts. Use your own words to describe why you are sending it, adding a few quotes.

an example:

So the stars are aligning quite nicely for John McCain; a campaign declared “dead in the water” just months ago, out of cash and out of favor with the Conservative Right (these of the militant Anti-Abortion, Anti-Mexican, Pro Religious Authority-Over Government set), and then all of the sudden there he is, charging the pack, scuffling, and now …the presumptive Republican Party winner.

How the heck did that happen? Mainstream Media domination is my guess, and, more to the point, media domination by those who seek an unending war and unending chaos in the Middle East. Just whom does this serve? I hope you go to the link and read the article by David Bromwich.

“…the opposition must educate the American public about Iraq. Tell how the war began, what the lies were that got us in, the way the strategy miscarried at every stage, and the reasons why the "blunders" of the war are not confined to the scapegoats Bremer and Rumsfeld but permeate a policy that assumed it was right for American soldiers to settle in Iraq. The permanent bases must be brought to the light of public discussion. What are they for? What good, and what harm, can be expected from our evident construction of an American garrison for operations in West Asia?”

[winoohno]

I do not doubt the veracity of your blog, but I am wondering what are your sources for this passage:

"Yet Iran was not the short-term object when Fallon was asked to resign. A few days earlier, he had publicly declared his view that American troops should start their withdrawal from Iraq. General Petraeus's design for an indefinite prolongation of the surge was subject to Fallon's approval; and Fallon let it be known that he would not approve. Rather, there would be a short pause, and then the first steps of the drawing-down. It was this that got him fired."

If this is true, why hasn't there been more reporting on this issue? Bush always says he will listen to the military commanders, so why didn't he listen to Fallon? Because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

And I think this is the resounding point of your blog and the the major theme of the past 7 years: there was a plan set forth (probably right before Geo W. Bush was elected) to conduct a False Flag Operation (9/11) and then attack Iraq and then position our forces in the Gulf to secure long-term oil investments.

[TRex86]

The American tragedy, our fatal character flaw, is our inability to walk away from our mistakes. We adore bad ideas. What we must acknowledge, however, is that it is a predictable consequence of our political process. During the election cycle outspoken critics of our idiotic policies get labelled as America haters, pro-terrorist, soft on crime, etc. Demagoguery trumps honest self-criticism. Craven politicians position themselves to deflect these kinds of attacks, leaving us paralyzed to undo our errors.
To repair our democracy we need a healthy fourth estate willing to look beneath the surface and challenge the propaganda. As voters we need to support politicians that speak truth to the demagogues. We need to call the propagandists out every time they play another dirty trick from the Karl Rove/Lee Atwater book. Our politicians must not engage in these tactics. They must show America what respectful, healthy dialog looks like. We have institutionalized so many bad ideas there is much to do.

[hopeless277]

George W. Bush plunged a dagger into the heart of the Middle East. To withdraw it will kill the area. To leave it in will kill the area. The Dems are patsys. They will be blamed for whatever happens where ever it happens. The solution is to counter the blamers. David is exactly right. The American people must be FORCED to see how this entire chapter in our history was allowed to happen and who supported it. They must be told again and again and again and again. They must be shown proof. It could have all been done with impeachment hearings. Thank you, Nancy girl, for letting the Republicans off the hook for the most devestating foreign policy crime in the history of this country.

[zjr909]

Where is it leading? Maybe, to another 911. Oh, but wait. That's right: the first was merely a coincidence. Sorry, wrong universe. There's nothing to see here.

[RamonBackwards]

Yeah so how exactly can I accurately express how grateful I am for David's writings?

I mean, sure "i'm a fan" of David, but that doesn't do my admiration for him justice.

it's amazing how things are evolving on these internets.­. amidst all the noise... all the blathering­.... the cream still has a chance to rise to the top..

i just wish i had more ways to say "thank you" instead of just posting "thank you" over and over when he posts. "thank you" posts which, by the way, are always kind of corny and annoying because they seem too much like ass-kissing. I'd prefer to have a link where I can contribute money to a certain writer. the tally should be displayed alongside the post and the author's total from all of his posts should appear in his profile.

perhaps i could add funds to a "piggy-bank" connected to my huffpo account, and i could designate a certain amount towards any given post.

yes, that's the way it shall be.

and it shall be good.

[gezapath]

Email everyone you can with a link to David's Post. Add your own comments along with selected quotes. Here is what I did:

So the stars are aligning quite nicely for John McCain; a campaign declared “dead in the water” just months ago, out of cash and out of favor with the Conservative Right (these of the militant Anti-Abortion, Anti-Mexican, Pro Religious Authority-Over Government set), and then all of the sudden there he is, charging the pack, scuffling, and now …the presumptive Republican Party winner.

How the heck did that happen? Mainstream Media domination is my guess, and, more to the point, media domination by those who seek an unending war and unending chaos in the Middle East. Just whom does this serve? I hope you go to the link and read the article by David Bromwich.

“…the opposition must educate the American public about Iraq. Tell how the war began, what the lies were that got us in, the way the strategy miscarried at every stage, and the reasons why the "blunders" of the war are not confined to the scapegoats Bremer and Rumsfeld but permeate a policy that assumed it was right for American soldiers to settle in Iraq. The permanent bases must be brought to the light of public discussion. What are they for? What good, and what harm, can be expected from our evident construction of an American garrison for operations in West Asia?”

[SparrowL]

Urgent message to fellow Democrats: Sober up!

Neither Clinton nor Obama are going to be able to end Bush's War. Iran would invade and annex Iraq, This may ultimately be the best hope for stability and recovery in Iraq, but in Washington it's unthinkable.

What the next President is going to have to do is to restart the draft, and pour vast resources of all kinds into Iraq. There's simply no acceptable option this side of the Euphrates! Of course, the U.S. has no money for this, so the money will have to come from other Arab states (read Saudi Arabia) with a vital interest in preventing annexation by Iran.

Personally, I hope Obama wins the White House. But I think ending the war anytime soon is a fantasy.

[LeftRight]

Iran isn't going to invade Iraq. They aren't as dumb as we are, and they KNOW that there's no way in hell that they could EVER hope to overcome what we've tried to do TWICE! (once in Iraq, and once in Vietnam) This is a very uninformed comment...­.

[research]

Let's just admit the Iraq Invasion and Occupation is a WAR CRIME

and leave.

[LeftRight]

unfortunately, bushco(tm) is constitutionally unable to admit a mistake. Much less a war crime. Thus, it will be up to the next Democratic President to get us out. Let's hope that it's next year.....

[pablito]

Plutocratic war pigs all.

[jhNY]

The best part of this permanent controversy is that it is soon to be a controversy that is both practically and rhetorically unsustainable, because the war and the tax hikes and the terminal hubris of the financial sector have all converged to drive us out of the poor house and into the streets. The war cannot go on and on because it cannot be paid for, and because sometime very soon nobody in the rest of the world is going to let us borrow more treasure we have no intention or capacity to pay back.

And then, just like that-- war's over. As, of course, will be what we've gotten into the habit of calling "the American way of life".

[jhNY]

Sorry. I meant to type "tax cuts", but instead wrote "hikes." Yikes.

[NickOhio]

Anyone who supports the use of war and killing and fighting is not adhering to the teachings of anyone whom you may call your spiritual leader... Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham, Buddha, etc. Overcome your love of war and killing by confronting the question: if your child were to go to war, would you support it? If you answer "Yes", then you indeed need some spiritual help.

Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, McCain, etc, are all no better than the "enemy" they are fighting. What is their purpose? Why Iraq? Are they so stupid to assume that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Nope... it's the oil. It's all about the oil. The Middle East is all about the oil. We'd never be involved over there if it wasn't about the oil. We've been involved in that region since the early 1900's. Why do we support a horrid govt. like Saudi Arabia, who treats women like chattel and who had the most perps in the 9/11 incidents? OIL!!!!! We support Israel because they are a local power who can be our surrogate in protecting what? OIL!!!!!!