FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

“The American Era in the Middle East has ended”

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:44 am    Post subject: “The American Era in the Middle East has ended” Reply with quote

By Mike Whitney

11/03/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Don Rumsfeld is not a good leader. In fact, he is a very bad leader. Leadership is predicated on three basic factors: Strong moral character, sound judgment, and the ability to learn from one’s mistakes. None of these apply to Rumsfeld. As a result, every major decision that has been made in Iraq has been wrong and has cost the lives of countless Iraqis and American servicemen. This pattern will undoubtedly continue as long as Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense.

Here’s a simple test: Name one part of the occupation of Iraq which has succeeded?

Security? Reconstruction? De-Ba’athification? Dismantling the Iraqi military? Protecting Saddam’s ammo-dumps? Stopping the looting? Body armor? Coalition government? Abu Ghraib? Falluja? Even oil production has been slashed in half.

Every facet of the occupation has been an unmitigated disaster. Nothing has succeeded. Everything has failed.

Everything.

Never the less, Rumsfeld assures us that “these things are complicated” and that we should just “Back off”.

It was Rumsfeld’s decision to replace America’s first Iraqi Viceroy, General Jay Garner after Garner wisely advised that we maintain the Iraqi military, leave many of the Ba’athists in the government (to maintain civil society) and convene leaders from the three main groups (Sunni, Shia and Kurds) to form a coalition government. This didn’t square with Rumsfeld’s plans to revolutionize Iraqi society and transform it into a neoliberal Valhalla; so Garner was unceremoniously dumped for Kissinger’s protégé, Paul Bremer.

Once Bremer was installed, things started heading downhill fast and have only gotten worse ever since.

Apart from the immense damage to Iraqi society, the enormous human suffering, and the massive loss of life; there is also the astronomical cost of the war which has been purposely concealed by the Defense Dept. Originally, the war was supposed to “pay for itself in oil revenues”. (according to neocon Paul Wolfowitz) That, of course, never happened but, the real costs appeared in this week’s Washington Post in an article by Jim Wolf called “Pentagon Expands War-funding Push”. The article states:

“With the passage of the fiscal 2006 supplemental spending bill, war-related appropriations would total about $436.8 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and enhanced security at military bases, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service said in a Sept 22 report….this is in addition to the more than $500 billion sought by President Bush in his baseline fiscal 2007 national defense request.”

That’s right; we’re spending a whopping $1 trillion a year for a war that we’re losing!

Still, don’t expect accountability from the Pentagon where taxpayer dollars are carelessly flung into the Mesopotamian black-hole with utter abandon. Heads never role because no one in charge ever accepts responsibility for their mistakes.

So, “Back off”!

On another matter, an editorial appeared in Tuesday’s New York Times, “The Untracked Guns of Iraq” which stated:

“More than 500,000 weapons were turned over to Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior since the American invasion –including rocket-propelled grenade launchers assault rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles—only 12,128 were properly recorded. Some 370,000 of these weapons, some of which are undoubtedly being used to kill American troops, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers, under the Orwellian-titled Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.”

In other words, we’re handing over state-of-the-art weaponry to the men who are killing American troops and, yet, no one is held responsible? How does that work? Apparently, the buck never stops at the Rumsfeld War Department; it just gets passed along to until it lands on a swarthy-looking Middle Eastern fellow or perhaps a garrulous leftist railing against the war on his blogsite.

A growing number of establishment-elites are frustrated with Rumsfled’s bungling and are ready for a change. But that doesn’t matter because the Sec-Def has the backing of powerful constituents in the banking, corporate and defense industries as well as neoconservative aficionados in many of Washington’s preeminent think-tanks. He also has Bush’s support, which is a mere formality since Cheney and Rumsfeld run the government anyway. The bottom line is, Rumsfeld is “here to stay”.

The real problem with Rumsfeld is that he is incapable of thinking politically, and it’s impossible to win in war unless one has clearly defined political objectives.

After 3 and a half years of violence and mayhem we still know as little about the Iraqi resistance as we did in March 2003. This is inexcusable. In addition, there’s been no attempt to engage the representatives of the resistance in political dialogue. How can we possibly reach a political solution without dialogue and negotiation?

It is shortsighted in the extreme to think that violence-alone can produce a victory.

It will not.

In war, violence is not an end in itself; it is a means to achieving a political goal. The over-reliance on military force, absent any communication or negotiation with the enemy, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of warfare.

An article by Dahr Jamail “US Military adopts Desperate Tactics” (IPS) illustrates this point:

“Increased violence is being countered by harsh new measures across the Sunni dominated al-Anbar province west of Baghdad. Thousands have been killed here by the Multi-National Forces (MNF) and Iraqi allies, and the situation is getting worse every day…..We have no role to play because the Americans always prefer violent solutions that have led from one disaster to another,” said on member of the Fallujah city council.

Here again, we see that “overwhelming force” without clearly defined political objectives just generates more violence. It is entirely futile, and yet, the policy remains unchanged.

Rumsfeld flattened Fallujah nearly 2 years ago thinking that the destruction of the city of 300,000 would “send a message” to the Sunnis; convincing them that it was useless to resist. His action, which was enthusiastically applauded by right-wing pundits and politicians in America, produced exactly the opposite response. The resistance is now stronger than ever, the attacks on American troops have increased dramatically, and al-Anbar province is no longer under U.S. control.

Anyone with even a superficial understanding of psychology could have predicted the outcome, but Rumsfeld blundered on with his iron-fisted tactics regardless of the facts.

Rumsfeld’s over-reliance on force has spread turmoil throughout the Sunni-heartland making it virtually ungovernable. The sectarian violence is now so bad that a leaked-Pentagon report prepared by the US Central Command says the country is in a state of “chaos”. This is the logical corollary of the Rumsfeld approach and it is unlikely to change.

For American troops in Iraq, there is a worse scenario than chaos; that is defeat. Patrick Cockburn’s 11-1-06 article “Baghdad is under Siege” in the UK Independent provides the chilling details of an armed Iraqi resistance which has now cut off supply lines to the capital and threatens to make America’s ongoing occupation impossible. Cockburn says:

“Sunni insurgents have cut the roads linking the city to the rest of Iraq. The country is being partitioned as militiamen fight bloody battles for control of towns and villages north and south of the capital….The country has taken another lurch towards disintegration. Well armed Sunni tribes now largely surround Baghdad and are fighting Shia militias to complete the encirclement. The Sunnis insurgents seem to be following a plan to control all approaches to Baghdad.”

Baghdad is surrounded and the predicament for American troops is increasingly tenuous. The battle is being lost on all fronts. So, what is Secretary Rumsfeld’s response to these new and urgent developments?

Rumsfeld held a press conference in which he blasted his critics for “focusing too much on the bad news coming out of Iraq” and announced the launching of a new public relations campaign which will attempt to elicit greater support for the ongoing occupation. The Pentagon plans to “develop messages” to respond to the negative news-coverage and, as Rumsfeld said, “correct the record.”

“Correct the record”? Is the Pentagon planning to “repackage” the war even while the Resistance is tightening its grip around the capital?

What type of madness is this? This is not the behavior of serious men. This is just more of the same “faith-based,” public relations hucksterism which leads nowhere. The worsening situation in Iraq will not improve by ramping-up the propaganda-machine, appealing to American chauvinism, or attacking critics of the war. This is real life; not some skit that’s been choreographed to dupe the Washington press corps. We need leaders who are capable of grasping the situation in realistic terms and initiating political dialogue with the warring parties. All the cheerleading and yellow ribbons in the world will not create a viable solution for the impending catastrophe.

The American people are way ahead of Rumsfeld on the issue of Iraq. Nearly 70% now believe that the war was a “mistake” and a clear majority is looking for candidates who will support a change in policy. A poll conducted by the New York Times/CBS News on 11-2-06 shows that “a substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress.” That tells us in stark terms that the public wants to “get out now”. The November 7 midterms will be a referendum on Bush’s “war of choice” and a flat rejection of the conflict which Rumsfeld so desperately wants to popularize. So far, the Democrats are showing substantial leads in all the polls.

The media has been a steadfast ally to the Bush troupe and given them a "free pass" throughout the conflict. They successfully drew an Iron Curtain around Iraq and kept the public from knowing about the 650,000 men, women and children were savagely butchered in Bush’s Petrol-War. Despite their best-efforts, however, public opinion has shifted away from the present policy and the American people are looking for an end to the fighting.

Rumsfeld’s plan for “a new kind of war” that depends on high-tech, laser-guided weaponry, massive counterinsurgency operations, and a submissive “embedded” media has fallen on hard times. The tremors can already be felt from Baghdad to Washington D.C. As Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) said in the November issue of Foreign Affairs, “The American era in the Middle East, the forth in the region’s modern history, has ended.” All that’s left is to sweep up the pieces of a failed policy and head home.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Every facet of the occupation has been an unmitigated disaster. Nothing has succeeded. Everything has failed.

Everything.

I has been an unqualified success. A threat to Israel has been removed and the Iraq set back decades. Mission accomplished.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AntiZionistAntiNeocon
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blackcat wrote:
I has been an unqualified success. A threat to Israel has been removed and the Iraq set back decades. Mission accomplished.



Not to mention, Israel may now get to activate the oil pipeline from Iraq, how convenient!:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940250,00.html

Also, once Iraq is split into 3 separate countries, as I think the plan has been from the beginning, the new states will be weak and divided and therefore unable to pose an effective against Israel.

Qui Bono? Haaretz, the Israeli Newspaper, said that: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassI D=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

This all links in with 9/11. If there was no 9/11, it would have been much more difficult to form public opinion against an attack on Iraq. It's in the open for everyone to see.
________
Honda CL450 specifications


Last edited by AntiZionistAntiNeocon on Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:47 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:11 am    Post subject: The end of Israel-USA is much closer now than ever before... Reply with quote

[quote="blackcat"]

Quote:

I has been an unqualified success. A threat to Israel has been removed and the Iraq set back decades. Mission accomplished
.

It was a success before it was started.


But the the Israeli loss in Lebanon this summer has changed the balance of forces once and for all. It no longer as invincible like its big brother.

The Arabs have put paid to the myth of the 'hyperpower'.

Very soon reality will catch up with the hype. The loss of the Middle East will be the beginning of the unravelling of the USA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pincher
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 242

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:41 pm    Post subject: Re: The end of Israel-USA is much closer now than ever befor Reply with quote

[quote="conspirator"]
blackcat wrote:


Quote:

I has been an unqualified success. A threat to Israel has been removed and the Iraq set back decades. Mission accomplished
.

It was a success before it was started.


But the the Israeli loss in Lebanon this summer has changed the balance of forces once and for all. It no longer as invincible like its big brother.

The Arabs have put paid to the myth of the 'hyperpower'.

Very soon reality will catch up with the hype. The loss of the Middle East will be the beginning of the unravelling of the USA.


You just don't get it Conspirator. Black Cat is 100% right. Far from ballsing up his remit Rumsfeld has been spectacularly successful.

Unbeknown even to the idealistic Chicago School intellectuals who backed PNAC the plan was for the implosion and dismemberment of Iraq from the very beginning.

Like a lot of BBC/Grauniad assessed 'diplomatic defeats' Iraq has been a success for a very powerful faction within the US establishment, particualrly within the CIA AND THE SECURITY APPARATUS.

Coming soon - break up of Lebanon, Syria, Iran (restoration of the Shah?) and the creation of a greater Kurdistan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackbear
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 656
Location: up north

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hopefully an interesting addition......


The military had its own role in the criminal conspiracy to invade and occupy Iraq, but having a chimp as the Commander-in-Chief and a bloodsucker as the Secretary of Defence, certainly constitutes a mitigating factor.

What really turns my stomach is those damn Neocon rats swimming away from the sinking Bush ship, but not before sh*tting on it one last time.

My own understanding is not that they are shocked -- shocked! -- at the "vicious sectarianism" of the Iraqi people, nor at the level of violence, nor at the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent to drag a very rich country, not to its knees, but to its belly, with its face in the (radioactive) dust.

They're 'disgusted' because, as I understand it, the main objectives of the invasion were:

1) to turn Iraq into a big ally of Israel by having the new "democratically-elected" Iraqi puppet government sign a peace treaty with Israel; even their stooge, Ahmed Chalabi, was not able to deliver, and the collapse of Iraq since the invasion has made a peace treaty with Israel impossible;

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Sources at the State Department said that concluding a peace treaty with Israel is to be 'top of the agenda' for a new Iraqi government, and Chalabi is known to have discussed Iraq's recognition of the state of Israel.

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/S...50,00.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

2) to immediately build an oil and gas pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa, pumping Iraqi oil to Israel;

3) to "secure access" to Iraqi water by Israel;

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Closely tied to the disputes surrounding Iraq and Syria's water supply is the proximity to Israel. Syria faces water difficulties on its southwestern border as well in the water-rich area of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967. The Golan Heights has important water resources that, according to Professor Emeritus Dan Zaslavsky at Bar-Ilan University, if handed back over to Syria would mean that Israel loses nearly one-third of its fresh water.

On May 7, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Bouthaina Shabaan of Syria to reaffirm the United States' commitment to returning the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967, as a key step in the peace process between Syria and Israel.

Should the U.S. broker a peace plan that guaranteed the Golan to Syria, Israel would have to find a replacement source for its lost resources. Stephen Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst, wrote in the New York Times that Turkey had envisioned building a Peace Pipeline carrying water that would extend to the southern Gulf States, and as he sees it, "by extension to Israel." He continued by saying that "no progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change."

http://www.counterpunch.org/wells05162003.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
all of which have failed miserably.

The fourth objective, to divide Iraq along ethnic/religious lines, into three mutually hostile mini-states, is the only one that appears to have a chance of "success".

I suspect that these Israeli moles (rats) are going to give their Democratic stooges a chance to do the job that the Republicans proved too "incompetent" to finish. .................Alice the Curious.

http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=68 53.topic

Concentrate on the present holocaust against the black moustaches.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: The end of Israel-USA is much closer now than ever befor Reply with quote

Pincher wrote:


You just don't get it Conspirator. Black Cat is 100% right. Far from ballsing up his remit Rumsfeld has been spectacularly successful.

Unbeknown even to the idealistic Chicago School intellectuals who backed PNAC the plan was for the implosion and dismemberment of Iraq from the very beginning.

Like a lot of BBC/Grauniad assessed 'diplomatic defeats' Iraq has been a success for a very powerful faction within the US establishment, particualrly within the CIA AND THE SECURITY APPARATUS.

Coming soon - break up of Lebanon, Syria, Iran (restoration of the Shah?) and the creation of a greater Kurdistan



Rumsfield was trained in the school of hard knocks or more precisely defeats. Vietnam in particular aiding Nixon. This is his personal history.

Opposed to the advise of his generals he sent a couple of football stadium full of soldiers to do a police job on 25 million people when what was at stake was killing half of them in order to ...save them.

Starting a war if the other side half agrees is a success of sorts if you can call spending $1 trillion bringing back 3,000odd body bags and 20,000 maimed and injured soldiers and being seen internationally to be losing to a country HALF the SIZE of Vietnam.

The war in Iraq made to prop up Israel and take the oil will end up meaning the LOSS of everything.

One can avoid the future theoretically in your head but one cannot avoid reality. The reality is that the US to coin an old phrase is a paper tiger. It has the weapons but not the personnel to fight. Its achilees heels are its soldiers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The loss of American soldiers means as little to the architects of the Iraq war as the lives of those they murdered on 9/11. They care nothing of the damage they do to America any more than any parasite cares what damage it does to its host. What they set out to achieve they achieved. Wmd, democracy for Iraq, removing a tyrant, war on terrorism are all lies and smokescreens. This illegal and immoral war, based on a pack of lies, was engineered by pro-Israeli elements within the US government who have all but achieved a coup in the USA. Like I said - mission accomplished. So far - they have not finished yet by a long way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:58 pm    Post subject: What does accomplished mean Reply with quote

blackcat wrote:
The loss of American soldiers means as little to the architects of the Iraq war as the lives of those they murdered on 9/11. They care nothing of the damage they do to America any more than any parasite cares what damage it does to its host. What they set out to achieve they achieved. Wmd, democracy for Iraq, removing a tyrant, war on terrorism are all lies and smokescreens. This illegal and immoral war, based on a pack of lies, was engineered by pro-Israeli elements within the US government who have all but achieved a coup in the USA. Like I said - mission accomplished. So far - they have not finished yet by a long way.


But this is the theory that Israel is in charge of the USA when it is the other way round.

The Yanks gave israel the green light to attack lebanon and they lost.
You think because the USA was able to start a war this is 'mission accomplished'. We obviously have a different definition of the words. When words lose meaning usually their is a motive.

For something to be accomplished it has to be completed.
More appropriately you could have said they started wars for oil, which they will lose as they are losing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But this is the theory that Israel is in charge of the USA when it is the other way round.

We will have to agree to differ. "We control America and the Americans know it." Guess who said that!!

Quote:
The Yanks gave israel the green light to attack lebanon and they lost.

Lost what exactly? Yanks controlled by Israel gave Israel the green light - what a surprise!

Quote:
You think because the USA was able to start a war this is 'mission accomplished'. We obviously have a different definition of the words. When words lose meaning usually their is a motive.

I think because Israeli sympathetic elements within the US administration were able to lead the USA into fighting a war on its behest and caused Iraq to become militarily impotent and divided that it accomplished its mission. I also think it is so blatant that it is idiotic to argue the point.

Quote:
For something to be accomplished it has to be completed.

Iraq is flattened and fighting amongst its various factions is rife. Mission accomplished.

Quote:
More appropriately you could have said they started wars for oil, which they will lose as they are losing.

Maybe - but I would have had to believe it. I do not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:18 pm    Post subject: Yanks are sinking in the Middle east no-mission accomplished Reply with quote

blackcat wrote:
Quote:
But this is the theory that Israel is in charge of the USA when it is the other way round.

We will have to agree to differ. "We control America and the Americans know it." Guess who said that!!

Quote:
The Yanks gave israel the green light to attack lebanon and they lost.

Lost what exactly? Yanks controlled by Israel gave Israel the green light - what a surprise!

Quote:
You think because the USA was able to start a war this is 'mission accomplished'. We obviously have a different definition of the words. When words lose meaning usually their is a motive.

I think because Israeli sympathetic elements within the US administration were able to lead the USA into fighting a war on its behest and caused Iraq to become militarily impotent and divided that it accomplished its mission. I also think it is so blatant that it is idiotic to argue the point.

Quote:
For something to be accomplished it has to be completed.

Iraq is flattened and fighting amongst its various factions is rife. Mission accomplished.

Quote:
More appropriately you could have said they started wars for oil, which they will lose as they are losing.

Maybe - but I would have had to believe it. I do not.



Wheres Rumsfield now?
Another victory another defeat?

Israel the US airbase in the Middle East was holed in bunkers for more than a month by a non-state army whom they defeated in the 20 year war in the Lebanon.

The fact of the matter is that Israel is shrinking by creating a wall around it, a major war was started to started to save it from dissapearing and the situation for the Yanks in the Middle East is at its lowest ebb EVER.

No one wants them there and when the reality of what is on the ground catches up with them well see whose policy has won out.

As for Iraq it isn't flattened. It has a boyant resistance and it has broken out of its pessimism with respect to the ten years of sanctions and the initial shock of the sellout of its country by its own leaders. New leaders are being created in the battlezones of Iraq.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group