SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: T L Comiskey who wrote (95257)1/12/2007 10:02:34 AM
From: James Calladine  Respond to of 361382
 
Mr Bush's masterplan: to spread the blame around
Published: 12 January 2007
The Independent (UK)

It was a chastened US president who addressed his fellow countrymen on Iraq on Wednesday, a president who accepted responsibility for mistakes made, called the situation "unacceptable" and ordered an about-turn on pretty much every aspect of operations. The US military is now being called upon to fight the battle for Baghdad all over again, in circumstances that are infinitely more complex than they were the first time around.


In its grave tone and subdued staging, this was a broadcast whose sombreness rivalled the low points of the Nixon and Carter presidencies. From a commander-in-chief whose cheery outlook has twice contributed to his electoral appeal, the dark mood was doubly shocking. Alluding, perhaps, to his arrogant "mission accomplished" speech from the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, George W Bush warned that victory would not look like the victories of the past: "There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship."

The question, of course, is whether the United States can achieve anything approaching victory in Iraq at all. Violence is now endemic. The country is awash with weapons. Society is fractured along ethnic and religious lines several times over. There may be an elected government in Baghdad, but it, too, is splintered, and its authority does not extend much further than the heavily fortified "green zone".

The military push, or "surge", that Mr Bush has ordered almost guarantees that things in Iraq will get worse, perhaps much worse, before they have the slightest chance of getting better. More likely, the new plan will run out of time, money, manpower, or all three. It has, though, one key advantage for Mr Bush compared with the so-called Baker plan and the more gradualist alternatives on offer: he cannot - yet - be accused of cutting and running, and the blame for failure will be spread around.

The military operations Mr Bush proposes were presented as an Iraqi-inspired plan: US and Iraqi forces are supposed to be jointly responsible for restoring and maintaining order. The Iraqi government, for its part, has undertaken to pass legislation on sharing oil revenues, create jobs and modify the de-Baathification programme to foster national reconciliation. US support, Mr Bush made clear, was contingent on the Iraqi government fulfilling its part of the deal.

Mr Bush threatened moves against Syrian and Iranian interests if these countries interfered in any way - in other words, they too would become scapegoats for failure. But it is the Democrat-controlled Congress that Mr Bush really skewered. By presenting failure in the apocalyptic light he did - as a "disaster" for the US and a threat to the very survival of its allies in the Middle East - Mr Bush has made it exceptionally hard for Congress to reject a request for more funds. Those voting "No" would risk accusations that they are undermining US security - the old patriotic card again.

Yesterday, the new Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, completed the administration's volte-face by announcing that he wanted to boost the US military by more than 90,000. The light and agile force favoured by Donald Rumsfeld - the force that conquered Iraq, but proved incapable of holding it - is now, it seems, recognised as just another mistake, to be consigned to the same oblivion as Mr Bush's premature triumphalism.

In an effort to explain why he dismissed the Baker plan so comprehensively, Mr Bush offered this. "To step back now," he said, "would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale." As an admission of the catastrophe that the US invasion has inflicted on Iraq, this summary could hardly be bettered.

comment.independent.co.uk



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (95257)1/12/2007 10:02:45 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Respond to of 361382
 
Politics in the Service of War
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Friday 12 January 2007

It was the famous Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz, in his analysis of the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, who wrote that war is "a continuation of politics by other means." This is a line that many have heard, and have mistakenly used as a justification for militarism in all its forms. Those who use this line, however, almost always fail to use the line that follows: "The political objective is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes."

The essence of Clausewitz's thinking is straightforward. The object of war is to secure the safety and health of the state, and is therefore an arm of the politics of that state. When war is an extension of politics, it necessarily follows that there are limitations placed upon war, because the politics using war exist first and foremost to defend and enhance the state. Permanent war in the service of itself will ultimately destroy any state. If the rationale became reversed, therefore, war would become the end rather than the means, and the state would be placed in mortal peril.

One wonders what Clausewitz would have made of the speech delivered Wednesday evening by George W. Bush. War, for Clausewitz, was a necessary evil whose ultimate goal was to serve the politics of the state. Bush's speech on Wednesday reversed the polarity of this axiom. Now, in Iraq, war is no longer in the service of politics. Now, in Iraq, politics are in the service of war.

In a sense, there was a time when the war in Iraq seemed to serve American politics, albeit in a gross and cynical manner. The war served the politics of those who knew that fear, uncertainty and rampant nationalism would help them win elections. The war served the politics of those who knew their radical policy ideas would never see the light of day without that fear and uncertainty. The war served to distract the populace from a series of mistakes and deliberate misdirections, thus defending the political standing of the perpetrators.

It worked, for a time, until the inherent flaws within the DNA of these cynical abuses of power overwhelmed the whole. Some say Iraq is a mess because we went in "light," without enough troops. Some say Iraq is a disaster because we essentially invaded that country alone, buttressed only by a small cluster of allies that became known as the "Coalition of the Willing." In truth, the invasion of Iraq was doomed to disaster the moment American soldiers stepped into the sands of that nation. It was doomed because, though the war appeared to serve politics, the reverse was in fact true. Politics, in Iraq, was in the service of war, and has been since the beginning.

Politics, now, is helpless before the tide that was unleashed. All the dire warnings of catastrophe should we "lose," all the gruesome and ever-present connections made to 9/11, all the talk of "insurgents" and "terrorists," cannot obscure the fact that we have given birth to a religious civil war motivated by the inescapable momentum of retribution and revenge. We have installed a toothless government that cannot govern anything beyond the reach of its arm, a government riven with the same sectarian loyalties that flood the streets with blood. We have placed tens of thousands of American soldiers - and will soon send more - in the middle of a fight they cannot win, cannot even hope to change. The avalanche has already begun, goes the old saying, and it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

"The changes I have outlined tonight," said Bush on Wednesday night, "are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will."

So we will send more troops into Baghdad and some of the more dangerous Iraqi provinces - around five battalions or so - along with billions more dollars, and the success or failure of this plan will depend upon the Shia-dominated government's ability to actually govern. Versions of this plan have come and go over the last years, each failing more spectacularly that the other.

This "new" plan will meet with the same fate, because we are no longer living in a world whose rules were outlined by Clausewitz. If this war were in the service of politics, this war would be stopped. It would be stopped because the war itself has become caustically dangerous to our politics, to those whose power depends on those politics, and to the state as a whole. As our politics are now in the service of war, however, politics have become irrelevant. Politics no longer hold sway, and cannot do anything other than whitewash the gore off the walls.

War is the continuation of politics by other means, said Clausewitz. Bush's speech Wednesday night was the most dramatic example to date of the reversal of this concept. Politics have become the continuation of war by other means, and in fact, by any means. What is deadliest of all for us, and for Iraq, is the inability of politics to do more than simply provide cover for itself while the war serves itself.

There are those in Congress working to derail this phenomenon, and they may succeed in time, for they have the support of a vast majority of the people. So long as the ones who allowed this reversal to take place remain in power, however, the war will continue to serve itself, and their politics will continue to be little more than a cheap vaudeville show run by carnival barkers trying to pass poison off as a panacea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation, will be available this winter from PoliPointPress.

-------



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (95257)1/12/2007 10:17:43 AM
From: Suma  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361382
 
Here is one for that list.

VOTE.

Even though it doesn't count.

Here in Sarasota 18.000 votes for Buchanan OR Jennings were not counted by machines.. Now, an you imagine eighteen thousand voters going to vote and leaving out the two leading contestants... because they did not like either... I cannot. Jennings is still fighting the irregularities. Leave it to Florida.