Bush's
new strategy - the
march of folly
So into the graveyard of Iraq, George Bush,
commander-in-chief, is to send another 21,000 of his
soldiers. The march of folly is to continue...
By Robert Fisk
01/11/07 "The
Independent" -- -- There will be
timetables, deadlines, benchmarks, goals for both
America and its Iraqi satraps. But the war against
terror can still be won. We shall prevail. Victory or
death. And it shall be death.
President Bush's announcement early this morning tolled
every bell. A billion dollars of extra aid for Iraq, a
diary of future success as the Shia powers of Iraq
still to be referred to as the "democratically elected
government" march in lockstep with America's best men
and women to restore order and strike fear into the
hearts of al-Qa'ida. It will take time oh, yes, it
will take years, at least three in the words of
Washington's top commander in the field, General Raymond
Odierno this week but the mission will be
accomplished.
Mission accomplished. Wasn't that the refrain almost
four years ago, on that lonely aircraft carrier off
California, Bush striding the deck in his flying suit?
And only a few months later, the President had a message
for Osama bin Laden and the insurgents of Iraq. "Bring 'em
on!" he shouted. And on they came. Few paid attention
late last year when the Islamist leadership of this most
ferocious of Arab rebellions proclaimed Bush a war
criminal but asked him not to withdraw his troops. "We
haven't yet killed enough of them," their videotaped
statement announced.
Well, they will have their chance now. How ironic that
it was the ghastly Saddam, dignified amid his lynch mob,
who dared on the scaffold to tell the truth which Bush
and Blair would not utter: that Iraq has become "hell" .
It is de rigueur, these days, to recall Vietnam, the
false victories, the body counts, the torture and the
murders but history is littered with powerful men who
thought they could batter their way to victory against
the odds. Napoleon comes to mind; not the emperor who
retreated from Moscow, but the man who believed the wild
guerrilleros of French-occupied Spain could be
liquidated. He tortured them, he executed them, he
propped up a local Spanish administration of what we
would now call Quislings, al-Malikis to a man. He
rightly accused his enemies Moore and Wellington of
supporting the insurgents. And when faced with defeat,
Napoleon took the personal decision "to relaunch the
machine" and advanced to recapture Madrid, just as Bush
intends to recapture Baghdad. Of course, it ended in
disaster. And George Bush is no Napoleon Bonaparte.
No, I would turn to another, less flamboyant, far more
modern politician for prophecy, an American who
understood, just before the 2003 launch of Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq, what would happen to the
arrogance of power. For their relevance this morning,
the words of the conservative politician Pat Buchanan
deserve to be written in marble:
"We will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all
the 'On to Berlin' bravado with which French poilus and
British tommies marched in August 1914. But this
invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives
predict ... For a militant Islam that holds in thrall
scores of millions of true believers will never accept
George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world
...
"The one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is
expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war.
They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the
French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan,
the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis
out of Lebanon... We have started up the road to empire
and over the next hill we will meet those who went
before."
But George Bush dare not see these armies of the past,
their ghosts as palpable as the phantoms of the 3,000
Americans let us forget the hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis already done to death in this obscene war, and
those future spirits of the dead still living amid the
20,000 men and women whom Bush is now sending to Iraq.
In Baghdad, they will move into both Sunni and Shia
"insurgent strongholds" as opposed to just the Sunni
variety which they vainly invested in the autumn
because this time, and again I quote General Odierno, it
is crucial the security plan be " evenhanded". This
time, he said, "we have to have a believable approach,
of going after Sunni and Shia extremists".
But a "believable approach" is what Bush does not have.
The days of even-handed oppression disappeared in the
aftermath of invasion.
"Democracy" should have been introduced at the start
not delayed until the Shias threatened to join the
insurgency if Paul Bremer, America's second proconsul,
did not hold elections just as the American military
should have prevented the anarchy of April 2003. The
killing of 14 Sunni civilians by US paratroopers at
Fallujah that spring set the seal on the insurgency.
Yes, Syria and Iran could help George Bush. But Tehran
was part of his toytown "Axis of Evil", Damascus a mere
satellite. They were to be future prey, once Project
Iraq proved successful. Then there came the shame of our
torture, our murders, the mass ethnic cleansing in the
land we said we had liberated.
And so more US troops must die, sacrificed for those who
have already died. We cannot betray those who have been
killed. It is a lie, of course. Every desperate man
keeps gambling, preferably with other men's lives.
But the Bushes and Blairs have experienced war through
television and Hollywood; this is both their illusion
and their shield.
Historians will one day ask if the West did not plunge
into its Middle East catastrophe so blithely because not
one member of any Western government except Colin
Powell, and he has shuffled off stage ever fought in a
war. The Churchills have gone, used as a wardrobe for a
prime minister who lied to his people and a president
who, given the chance to fight for his country, felt his
Vietnam mission was to defend the skies over Texas.
But still he talks of victory, as ignorant of the past
as he is of the future.
Pat Buchanan ended his prophecy with imperishable words:
"The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not
learn from history."
The Bush plan, and the question of withdrawal
What Bush says
20,000 troops increase
Mistake of not sending sufficient troops must be
rectified. Troops stabilise Baghdad and reinforce Anbar
province, on condition that Iraqis take on Shia militias
$1bn reconstruction aid
Fresh funds will help create jobs and stimulate economy
to show Iraqis there can be a peace dividend, and
friendly Middle East states should help out too
Pullout
US commitment to Iraq is not open-ended but no timetable
for troop withdrawal, even though US troops are expected
to hand control to Iraqis by November
What Congress says
20,000 troops increase
Troop build-up is a mistake. House expected to vote on
increase, Senate legislation forces Bush to seek
congressional approval but neither move could block
troop deployment
$1bn reconstruction aid
Don't throw good money after bad. US has squandered
billions since the invasion and Democrats plan
investigation. Millions of dollars 'overpaid' by
Pentagon to Iraq contractors
Pullout
Bush has not learnt the lesson of November's mid-term
elections which gave Democrats control of the House and
Senate on the platform of a phased withdrawal from Iraq
What Baker says
20,000 troops increase
Up to 20,000 military trainers and troops embedded into
and supporting Iraqi army, while combat troops drawn
down to avoid increase in total numbers
$1bn reconstruction aid
US economic assistance should be boosted to $5bn per
year. US should take anti-corruption measures by posting
oil contracts on the internet for outside scrutiny
Pullout
All US combat troops not needed for force protection
should be out of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008
Likely outcome
20,000 troops increase
Escalation of conflict
Money will be wasted, with official corruption in Iraq
said to drain $7bn a year
Pullout
Troop surge could disguise 'cut and run' depending on
the circumstances in both Iraq and America
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.