Bush plans (another) fucking enormous bloodbath in Iraq

War Memorial

So, we’ve all been hearing about the impending ‘surge’

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 — President Bush’s new Iraq strategy calls for a rapid influx of forces that could add as many as 20,000 American combat troops to Baghdad, supplemented with a jobs program costing as much as $1 billion intended to employ Iraqis in projects including painting schools and cleaning streets, according to American officials who are piecing together the last parts of the initiative.

The American officials said that Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, formally agreed in a long teleconference on Thursday with Mr. Bush to match the American troop increase, made up of five combat brigades that would come in at a rate of roughly one a month, by sending three additional Iraqi brigades to Baghdad over the next month and a half.

Nonetheless, even in outlining the plan, some American officials acknowledged deep skepticism about whether the new Iraq plan could succeed.

They said two-thirds of the promised Iraqi force would consist of Kurdish pesh merga units to be sent from northern Iraq, and they said some doubts remained about whether they would show up in Baghdad and were truly committed to quelling sectarian fighting.

The call for an increase in troops would also put Mr. Bush in direct confrontation with the leaders of the new Democratic Congress, who said in a letter to the president on Friday that the United States should move instead toward a phased withdrawal of American troops, to begin in the next four months.

New York Times

Even the normally level-headed John Keegan appears to have joined the happy crowd shouting ‘More of that nice Kool-Aid if you please Reverend Jim!”

President George W. Bush is about to launch a final push in Iraq with a large reinforcement of American troops in the hope of crushing the insurgency before America embarks on a large-scale withdrawal of force from the country.

The size of the force is commonly set at about 40,000-50,000 troops. The aim of this surge will be to inflict severe damage and loss on the problem-making elements within Iraq, including both Shia and Sunni militias, and to increase training of the Iraqi security forces under American supervision.

The arguments against the surge are that it might exacerbate the violence without deterring the perpetrators from persisting in their attacks and that it might result in a sharp increase in American casualties with no observable gain. The arguments for trying a surge are that it is defeatist to concentrate on withdrawal from Iraq without attempting a final effort to make military force work.

Daily Telegraph

This line in particular is a corker, what sort of really powerful mind-altering drugs is John Keegan taking these days? Or does Blair’s PR office have his kids held hostage someplace?

The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops.

‘Cost’ for who John?

Doing a Fallujah in say Sadr City isn’t just going to kill active participants. Fighting in a built-up area full of grannies and little kids, the troops will have absolutely no way to tell whether their heavy weapons are hitting fighters or civilians. Using armour and air power is just going to kill all of them indiscriminately.

The idea seems to be that they’re going to repeat the Grozny-like success of their operation in Fallujah against either some other Sunni cities or more likely Sadr City. It doesn’t sound like they’re really too sure what they intend to achieve actually, it sounds like they’re thrashing around helplessly without any coherent plan at all other than ‘kill some more Iraqis to prove we aren’t sissies’ but whatever it is it’ll probably kill a lot of people for no particular reason. A second US carrier battle-group arrives in the region this week, so we can be fairly sure the bombs are going to rain down on some poor buggers in the near future.

These idiots are in dreamland. They appear to have mistaken their domestic political propaganda for reality somewhere along the line. They’re living in a myth. So much more comfortable than reality, but a lot more dangerous to those around them. Top 10 Myths about Iraq.

Doubtless our lying shitweasel of a Prime Minister the Reverend Tony Blair will be just as keen to support this murderous stupidity as he was to prevent a ceasefire in the Lebanon in order that the IDF could carry on doing Gods Work (TM) against the unfortunate Lebanese civilian population and vital infrastructure. Maybe he’ll even volunteer some UK troops to join in the fun, just by way of showing the increasingly angry and cynical population of the UK once again just who it is that he really works for. It certainly isn’t the majority of ordinary working people of the UK, who now have the blood of thousands of innocent strangers in the Middle East on their hands whether they like it or not (and almost all of us do not) and have the exciting challenge of wondering about whether we’re going to get suicide bombed on the way to work, for no reasons that make any sense to any of us, thanks to Blair’s puppy-like eagerness to be of faithful service to his neo-conservative masters.

After invading and occupying Iraq on the basis of of a bunch of big fat stinking lies, turning it into a sort of live-action Disneyland for wanna-be jihadis and letting them practice on US troops until they get to be really competent and dangerous jihadis, increasing the threat of domestic terrorism, getting a whole lot of mostly working class lads who joined the US and UK military killed, along with a couple of hundred times their number of Iraqis and all of it for no readily obvious reason, you’d think there would be some way to do something about these lunatics, but no. They’re still in power and still making the world a shittier place to live in for almost all of us.

The thought that all it’s achieved is to put a bunch of chanting, noose-waving, hooded death squad guys in power and generate fat revenue streams for KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton isn’t particularly convincing me that any of this was a smart move.

If there was some point to it, that might be different, but it’s pretty clear that the Iraqis overwhelmingly (81%) want occupation troops gone sometime pretty soon and without waiting around for ‘security to improve’, that they think, almost certainly correctly that the occupying troops are causing more violence than they’re preventing (78%) but that they don’t believe that they’re going to go away willingly (78%), which is why so many Iraqis (61%) now actually support attacks on US troops.

Poll data

If we’re supposed to be there for the Iraqis’ benefit, it’s pretty clear that hasn’t worked out, so it’s time to leave. If we’re actually there for some other reason that our government doesn’t want to admit to, let’s hear what it actually is and see whether we think it’s in our interests.

7 Comments

  1. Posted January 7, 2007 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Gung-ho Bush strikes again! The stupid man.

    All it will do is antagonise and anger the factions hence increase the violence. Plain as can be. And more civilians will die. Very sad.

  2. Posted January 7, 2007 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Hiya earthpal,

    Have you see the happy news in this morning’s Sunday Times?

    “Israel plans to nuke Iran”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

    These clowns are getting right out of control. Even if, as seems likely the latter story is a deliberate leak via the Murdoch press intended to push the US into action against Iran, it’s still demonstrating just how deranged things are in that region, in no small part due to neo-conservative foreign policy adventures, which appear to still be ongoing and making it worse.

    The lack of any apparent plan for the use of these troops makes me wonder if they’re actually being sent to deal with the expected backlash when the US and/or Israel attacks Iran.

    After all, the neo-cons handed Iran a massive strategic gain by making such a mess of Iraq that they had to let a bunch of pro-Iranian parties form a government. They can’t be at all happy about that, so I really wouldn’t assume they’ve finished causing disasters yet.

  3. Posted January 7, 2007 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Hi Caractacus.

    Hmm..just read it. If Israel did strike Iran without a UN resolution, it would be a violation of international law. But hey…what does that matter?

    It’s very scary though because of course, the West will probably sanction the strike which will simply strengthen the Jihadist cause against the West and raise the instability of the region to very grim levels.

    What a world huh?

  4. Posted January 7, 2007 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    “The lack of any apparent plan for the use of these troops makes me wonder if they’re actually being sent to deal with the expected backlash when the US and/or Israel attacks Iran”.

    Forgot to say…good observation. It wouldn’t at all surprise me if Bush’s plans were made to deliberately coincide with Israeli plans to attack Iran. Yes, the inevitable backlash will put existing troops in Iraq under immense pressure.

  5. Posted January 7, 2007 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Another possible provocation would be the attempt to privatise Iraq’s oil that they’re apparently going to try to ram through in the next few weeks.

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

    What I’m wondering is whether all the vagueness about what these surge troops (plus the extra carrier battle group that’s due to arrive any day now) are supposed to be doing is a result of the US government knowing that something it’s about to do, or possibly several things, is going to provoke a big backlash.

    It’d make a sort of sense. The neo-cons are going to be tied up pretty soon by subpoena-waving Democrats dragging all their skeletons out of closets in preparation for the 2008 elections, so if they want to privatise Iraq’s oil, start a war with Iran and so on in order to tick off the last few items on their shopping list of foreign policy disasters, then now’s the time.

    On those assumptions it’d make a lot of sense to reninforce as far as possible before the shit really started to hit the fan. Once they’ve kicked it all off, it doesn’t really matter what the Democrats do, because they’ll be committed.

  6. Noahcounting
    Posted January 15, 2007 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    The U.S. will stay in Iraq for economic reasons to keep a secure source of energy. No U.S. politician wants to end up like Jimmy Carter with astronomical oil prices destroying their chance for reelection.
    This is bad news, but I’ll bet there’s good news in the pipeline with genetic engineering of bacteria. Fuel from biomass will become a major part of the energy business.
    Since about 80% of the problem in the Middle East is oil, 20% Isreal, 80% of the problem will go away once biofuels take off in the U.S.
    The head of the Human Genome Project predicts that OPEC will be broken by 2020. He estimated the Human Genome Project would be completed by 2005 and it finished in 1999.
    With secure internal energy supplies the U.S. will have as much interest in much of the Middle East as it does in Rwanda, which had no oil. Perhaps cynical about how amoral countries are, but optimistic just the same.

  7. Posted January 15, 2007 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    It’ll be interesting to see how biomass fuels go. The key issue of course is competition with food and other vital crops. Some of the GMO stuff shows promise for recycling waste, but again, if you can do that to make oil, you can also do it to make fertilizer (rather than making it from oil) so the competition angle still applies. In a situation where a couple of billion people are malnourished or actually starving, there is an argument that there are higher priorities than cars for the use of land or processable waste.


Post a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: