Interesting new line on Iraq by George Bush at the weekend: he's saying that "military tactics in Iraq will keep changing to deal with insurgents".
Well, if they define "changing tactics" as "getting the hell out", then that's kind of accurate.
There seems no chance that the situation in Iraq will get any better under the current occupation by US and UK forces, and that means hundreds of Iraqis, and dozens of soldiers, dying every week in bombings, militia killings, and hell knows what else. Even the hard-core neo-cons in the Bush administration (and Tony Blair) have now realised this is a no-win situation. The main priority now for Bush, after almost four years of telling America how well the Iraq situation was 'progressing', is to begin propogating the notion that getting out is the obvious thing to do, and nobody but a yahoo lunatic would believe otherwise.
The reason this attempt to brainwash the US public (plus as much of the rest of the world as wants to know) has to take place of course that Bush, Cheney et al have spent the last four years saying the opposite. So the US Government is now fighting its own propaganda... and for the Republicans the stakes are high. Not for Bush personally, as his second term is already a complete bust. Iraq has paralysed his administration the same way Watergate paralysed Nixon. But on the current US polling evidence the Republicans may lose both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the mid-term elections in a couple of weeks. Even if just one of them fell to the Democrats, and the situation was maintained in the 2008 elections, that would make it very difficult for an imcoming Republican president to get any legislation through. Which is not good news for the US Right... many of whom will be mighty pissed off with Dubya, for probably giving the biggest boost to the left in US politics since Watergate (so many parallels... but that, and the 2008 Presidential race, will have to wait until a later post. Or probably, several later posts.)
So I will expect to see an increasing number of stories from people inside the US administration, and allies here, saying that 'tactics are changing' in Iraq, 'there is a new game plan', etc, etc... Meanwhile there will be an increasing clamour of voices outside the administration saying that the US and UK should get out. The Bush administration would be quite prepared to 'plant' these, except that they don't actually need to in most cases... for the last 3 years there have been a huge number of people saying we should get out. It's just that now, the Bush administration agrees with them. Although it can't say so in so many words - yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Whilst I agree that the situation is almost certainly beyond military salvation, this is a depressing time to be alive if you value any kind of freedom. Whatever you and other Sino/North Korean 'agent provocateurs' think, I cannot believe that you prefer the kind of headhackers primarily responsible for the massive death toll in Iraq to' hardcore neo-cons'I expect new fronts to be opened up in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in the middle East fairly soon by the jihadists. I would also expect more big payouts (and possibly an explosion of 'second home' purchases for Abu Hamza and other rabble-rousers) to enemies in our own midst. I just hope that people with a more optimistic mindset than mine are proved right.
To paraphrase another Sci-Fi classic:
'These people can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with and they absolutely will not stop, ever , until you are dead!'
Must go and work on the 'phased plasma rifle in a forty -watt range' to protect myself from the coming onslaught!
Mate... PLEASE give one example of a "Sino/North Korean agent provocateur" operating in the UK today.
Hey Hal!
Bob Crow and Ken Livingstone are probably the two most high-profile examples. Even if not directly controlled by the two aforesaid powers, their policies are so damaging to the City of London, and by extension the entire British economy, they might as well be.
I may relent in response to pressure from various quarters and describe them, to paraphrase Lenin, as 'useful idiots' whose stupidity might be unwittingly having the same impact as if they were openly pro-Beijing. A good example of somebody who I would genuinely classify as a 'useful idiot' is the current Chancellor.
You seem to characterise a variety of moderate positions , particularly on Europe as 'Hard Right' so to my mind there's really no difference between the two of us. A left-leaning media conspiracy has allowed your characterisation to become acceptable. All I'm doing is trying to redress the balance!
What's your response to the point made, taking out the North Korean reference, other than characterising the current US administration as sinister fools?
Actually, characterising the current US administration as sinister fools is my main point. I think they are partially responsible for the upsurge in violence in Iraq, as they unseated Saddam Hussein's administration without having any kind of plan for a workable replacement regime. It would have been far better to fund internal insurrections to destroy the regime from within - a tactic which the Americans whave been quite happy to use previously.
Post a Comment