Thursday, January 11, 2007

What 'surge' really means

I thought there was at least a chance that Bush would dance with the ones who brought him, and reject the latest version of the Zionist Plan for the Middle East.  Apparently not.  Not only did Bush reject the Baker suggestions, he ran roughshod over every single one of them.   In fact, by prominently mentioning Baker’s suggestions in his speech, he managed to publicly humiliate Baker and all of Bush’s father’s friends (I wonder if Bush’s father’s hip replacement surgery removed the father’s influence at a critical time).  Bush could have, for example, called for some kind of reevaluation of American strategy while avoiding mention of Iran and Syria.  Instead, by making bellicose attacks on Iran and Syria, he rejected the entire tenor of the Baker plea for some sort of diplomatic sanity in the Middle East.  He had a clear choice between the Zionists and the American Establishment, and he chose the Zionists.

Now we will get to see the unedifying spectacle of the Democrats squirming around as they try to appear critical while rushing to provide Bush, and their Zionist masters, with everything they need for the disaster.  I don’t want to hear any more quibbling about how the ZOG isn’t running America.  We have absolutely conclusive proof.

The ‘surge’ is itself another Bush lie.  The Pentagon doesn’t have the troops, so the ‘increase’ will just be Pentagon crooked bookkeeping (crooked bookkeeping is something the Pentagon is good at).  The real plan is much worse.  It is a covert change in the rules of engagement.  From Bush’s speech (emphasis in red): 

“Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighbourhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.

Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighbourhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighbourhoods that are home to those fuelling the sectarian violence.

This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighbourhoods - and [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nouri] Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

This is coded language, but not difficult to read.  Bush is calling for genocide against the Sunnis.  He is following the recommendation of John Podhoretz in the New York Post (note that Uruknet misattributes this to John Podhoretz’s almost equally vile father; the most infamous line is in red):

“What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

If you can't imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?”

Now we can imagine Bush issuing such an order.  We will also see the Americans go medieval on the Sunnis in Anbar (who are called ‘al Qaeda’).  Just to confirm who is running things, there is a tiny reference in Bush’s speech to more for Israel:

“We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defence systems to reassure our friends and allies.”

Patriot air defense systems deployed in Iraq would protect Israel from attacks from where?  You do the geometry.  If Israel wants to try something awful, it would not want to face any kind of counterattack.

The neocons have been lying in the weeds, pretending to have been soundly defeated by the all-powerful American Establishment.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Bush’s speech could have been – and probably was – written by Bill Kristol.  The Zionist Plan for the Middle East continues, with the next step ensuring that Iraq breaks up.  You have to wonder what the Saudis, who have expressed concern about Shi’ite influence, will think about an American campaign of genocide against Sunnis.  You have to wonder what the American Establishment, too decadent and weak to defend itself, will do when much of its wealth is destroyed.

 

 

0 comments: