Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Further reflections on the 'surge'

Further reflections on the 'surge':

    1. Just as I thought, American legislators are drawing their ‘line in the sand’ at Iran.  The ‘Iran talk’ had the desired effect of giving Bush a pass on his Iraq plans, as long as he doesn’t attack Iran.  The Democrat trick is to make a big deal about Iran so Bush can get away with his Zionist plan to break up Iraq by increasing the violence levels.  Voters are supposed to forget that they voted Democrat in order to get out of Iraq.
    2. How many deadlines have we now passed that ‘experts’ assured us would be the certain start of an attack on Iran?
    3. For a supposedly important speech, Bush’s ‘surge’ speech was remarkably vague.  It is almost impossible to determine what he intends to do (which may in part reflect the fact that his military advisors were unable to tell him what they could do, especially given that there aren’t even enough additional troops for a surge-let).  The summary seems to be that the Americans are going to kill a lot more Sunnis, and the Iraqi government is supposed to rein in the Shi’ite militias, by diplomacy or otherwise (something which we know will never happen, but which appears to be a bone thrown to the Saudis).  The upshot is that the ultimate position of Iran in Iraqi politics will be strengthened.
    4. Of course, Americans have neither the technical ability, nor the motivation, to figure out who they are killing before they kill.  Sunnis, Shi’ites, they all look the same at the end of a gun.
    5. The two big fault lines in Iraq are Sunni vs. Shi’ite, and Kurd vs. Rest of Iraq.  The Zionist goal is to have both of these break, but the irony is that the second one is holding the first one together.  The Rest of Iraq (a term I’m borrowing from Canadian politics, where the division is Quebec versus the Rest of Canada) – Sunnis and Shi’ites – doesn’t want the Kurds to get away with stealing the Kirkuk oil fields.  They are thus inclined to stick together to keep the whole country together.  The Kurds themselves seem to realize that separation means defeat at the hands of the Turks (Iran also wants the Kurds to stay in an Iraqi federation, as a separate Kurdistan will want to annex northern Iran).  Despite American/Zionist violence, various pressures continue to hold the country together.
    6. Both Ronald Bleier and Jeff Wells think I am too optimistic.  Bleier writes:

“If it's not about oil, what's it about? It's about a permanent war agenda, and this includes a war against the people and the environment and the economy of the United States as well. Permanent war means the destruction of everything including eventually the warmakers.

That's why they are called nihilists.”

Jeff  Wells speaks of ‘Mansonic logic’ leading to something big, chaotic, and horrible.  These comments remind me of the good old days of Conspiracy Theory, starring the Rockefellers, the CIA, and the Trilateral Commission.  I honestly don’t think the Bushites are that sophisticated.  Their motivations are still money (personal graft), power, and Israel, not necessarily, but usually, in that order.  The Zionists think a final, violent push can permanently break up Iraq, and this meshes with Bush’s desire not to go down in history as a President who lost another war against some peasants.  No matter how much the warbloggers claim that Iraq isn’t like Vietnam, the fact is that it is fear of a Vietnam result that will continue to keep Americans in Iraq.  There is still a bit of money to be made running mercenaries and weapons, and the Republicans will argue that their Presidential candidate is the only one capable of withdrawing from Iraq ‘with honor’ (outrageous, I know, but they’ll probably get away with it).

While all the American bloviation continues, Mahmoud ‘What, me worry?’ Ahmadinejad was meeting with his fellow Time ‘Man of the Year’ Hugo Chavez.  Then he followed Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales of Bolivia to Nicaragua, to celebrate the election of Daniel Ortega.  Ahmadinejad said:

“The imperialists don't like us to help you progress and develop. They don't like us to get rid of poverty and unite people.  Iran, Nicaragua and Venezuela and other revolutionary countries are together and we will resist together.”

While Bush talks and perspires, China and Russia continue to solidify their respective energy positions, and the rest of the world unites against the United States.