Sunday, July 16, 2006

Bush has de-stabilized the middle east, strengthened Iran, abandoned Lebanon

In the face of a disproportionate response by Israel, the US has abandoned Lebanon, the best hope for democracy in the Middle East. Bush's attack, invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq has irreparably undermined American influence and power everywhere in the Middle East. If what Bushco had said of Iran is true, then Bush risks driving Lebanon into an alliance with Iran at a time when the US has eschewed its traditional role of 'honest broker'.

The US failure to restrain Israel has only strengthened Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has already become a major player in the world wide scramble for Middle Eastern resources. As Israel's disproportionate attack on Lebanon nears the end of its first week, the fact that Lebanon —hitherto the region's best hope for Democracy —will find more in common with Iran than with the US who has clearly left Lebanon to its fate at the hands of Ehud Olmert. The so-called great game is lost; Bush, if not checkmated, is, at least, checked in what Zbigniew Brzezinski called The Grand Chessboard

In the year 2003, Juan Cole wrote:

Most Shiite leaders in Iraq have made a tactical decision not to resist the Anglo-American occupation during the coming year. They hope the US, in recreating Iraq as a parliamentary democracy, will give them the political power they deserve by virtue of their numbers. If not, or if the Americans overstay their welcome, the Shiites might well turn against them. It is not, however, clear that the community is united enough yet to effectively close ranks against coalition forces.

—Juan Cole, Shiite divisions give the US breathing room

Brzezinski's thesis, however, was taken up by Bushco, a group easily swayed by grandiose and megalomaniacal visions of American pre-eminence in a post-Soviet world. Brzezinski's thesis encouraged less gifted thinkers to envision the Bush administration holding absolute sway throughout the Middle East from oil-rich former Soviet satellites to the shores of the Mediterranean.

Instead, Iraq has become a black hole pointing up the fatal inconsistencies in Bush's plan for world dominance if not outright conquest.

Chess players will understand this analogy: Bush lost the game with a flawed opening. As early as July of 2003, the BBC would report that "...the new Centcom commander, John Abizaid, said coalition forces were facing what looks like a systematic guerrilla war". The Bush administration failed to understand and fully appreciate that much of the Middle East is less "state" oriented than tribal in nature. Power throughout the region is, therefore, capable of coalescing unpredictably to outside threats. In Iraq, specifically, Bush failed to anticipate the rise to power of a Shi'ite theocracy capable of forming an alliance with Bush's boogie-man du jour: Iran.

Shias account for about 90 percent of the Iranian population, some 70 percent of all people living in the Persian Gulf region. About 140 million people living in an area from Lebanon to Pakistan call themselves Shias; that's about 50 percent of all people in that region. It's not surprising that Bush himself would have been ignorant of these elementary facts. It is inconceivable, however, that Condoleeza Rice, as National Security Advisor at the time, would not have done at least five minutes of basic research before consenting to complicity in Bush's decision to commit US troops to a war of naked aggression cum quagmire cum disaster.

By liberating and empowering Iraq's Shiite majority, the Bush administration helped launch a broad Shiite revival that will upset the sectarian balance in Iraq and the Middle East for years to come.

...

Iraq's liberation has also generated new cultural, economic, and political ties among Shiite communities across the Middle East. Since 2003, hundreds of thousands of pilgrims, coming from countries ranging from Lebanon to Pakistan, have visited Najaf and other holy Shiite cities in Iraq, creating transnational networks of seminaries, mosques, and clerics that tie Iraq to every other Shiite community, including, most important, that of Iran.

—Vali Nasr, Foreign Affairs, When the Shiites Rise
Reportedly, the Bush administration is worried about the way the world is trending. That's cold comfort. It is Bush and his gang of incompetents who may be credited with having fanned the flames. Could Bush have behaved otherwise? Yes —but only if he had represented the interests of the people of the United States instead of the combined interests of Dick Cheney's Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Unocal, the since failed Enron, and other representatives of big oil. Their long term interests are the control of the world price of the world's most addictive drug: Oil! American democracy and world peace are just not very high on their list of misplaced priorities.






The Existentialist Cowboy

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

It would seem to me that a massive bombing campaign against Syria and Iran could some some collateral damage to the Democrats in November. An idea not lost on the current admin.

Anonymous said...

You would think, after reading it three times, I could spot the error, wouldn't you:

It would seem to me that a massive bombing campaign against Syria and Iran could produce some some collateral damage to the Democrats in November. An idea not lost on the current admin.

Unknown said...

Bush may be hoping that Israel will bomb them; then he wouldn't have to do it himself. A US bombing campaign might backfire on Bush. Some of the most vocal critics of his handling of the Israel/Lebanon sitution are conservatives. Bush remains a threat to world peace, a clear and present danger.

Anonymous said...

If Israel bombs Iran they will have to fly over US controlled airspace. There will be no arguing that the actions were done with anything other than full US approval and cooperation. I think if it comes down to it the US will wear the public criticism, particularly if it plays well at home. Of course, they want to attack Iran for any reason at all and they've never stepped back from foolish actions in the past. They current US leadership has a short term view in many ways and several commentators have made the point that every decision made by them is done so for political reasons with a clear eye on the polls. Certainly oil at $200, attacks by Shia militia against US soldiers in Iraq as a response to any Iran bombings and the possibility of a US military draft ought to slow these guys up. But I doubt it. Obstructions to them are just speed-bumps on the road to where ever the hell they're going.

Unknown said...

That's the corner that Bush has painted himself into. The government of HIS creation in Iraq is Shi'ite and they have, in fact, already formed an alliance with Iran. If it was Bush's intention to allow Olmert to attack Lebanon in order to draw Iran into the conflict, it will only get him kicked out of Iraq. If what Bush himself has called the "government of Iraq" asks the US to leave, how then is Bush to justify that act to America and the world without betraying —at long last —that his word means abso-fuckin'—lutely nuthin!

Which, of course, it doesn't. But stupid Bush probably hasn't yet figured out that we know that already.

On reflection, I don't think Bush wants Iran to jump in on this one —even it does give him an excuse to bomb Iran. It would only lose him the bigger prize as described by Brzezinski and that is unlimited access to the resources of the entire Middle East.

Bush is, in fact, checkmated on what Brzezinski called "The Grand Chessboard". He played the Queen's Gambit when he should have played Pawn to King 4. Dumbass that he is, he out dumbed himself this time.

Sebastien Parmentier said...

No, no, no! Syria is a job for Israel only! Since that nation has been playing tough for too long, I want to see them waging an important – and needed – war by themselves. With conventional weapons, let’s see how their American financed military (see the comment I posted in Len’s previous article to that Israeli citizen…) can handle their “Iraq”.

Hitting civilians within a country with no military other than a few Hezbollah is one thing, taking care of real enemy is another.

Damien: If Israel bombs Iran they will have to fly over US controlled airspace.

Dick already authorized that thing long ago, when he used to have these half –a-hour long talks with Sharon last year.

Len:
On reflection, I don't think Bush wants Iran to jump in on this one —even it does give him an excuse to bomb Iran. It would only lose him the bigger prize as described by Brzezinski and that is unlimited access to the resources of the entire Middle East.


You nailed it. While it has been leaked that Cheney said during the energy meeting at the white house, “We will take the filet mignon out of the French!”, it looks like the US will still have to wait to pop the cap off the BBQ sauce.

It’ll take years before Iraq can pump at full strength, and it is still unsure if the Americans are those who will enjoy most of it.

Brzezinski was not only arrogant in is brand of imperialism, he was incredibly arrogant to believe that history would and will behave itself in regard to American interests. Like the rest of the world, their people, their passions and their struggles and endeavors simply did not exist…

SadButTrue said...

Why, Len, does your analogy of the chessboard applied to Bush send me into paroxysms of hysterical laughter? This idiot couldn't play a decent game of checkers. He should stick to mumblypeg and tiddlywinks, which are more his speed. Jeez, when the guy ran the Texas Rangers, he traded away Sammy Sosa, didn't he? But Chess? LMFAO!!

But seriously, a better chess analogy would to say that his piece is pinned. The bulk of US military strength being engaged in Iraq, Bush's hands are tied in consideration of any real crises, N. Korea, Iran, Israel, what have you. Or, alternately you could say that he was forked, subject to two simultaneous attacks at once, and not free to deal with either one. Well and truly forked. One seldom sees such incompetence outside of the Darwin Awards finalists.

Dante has a real and valid point regarding the arrogance of American imperialism. Unlike the majority (apparently) of Americans, us damn foreigners don't necessarily see the doctrine of manifest destiny as a good thing. And while we're on that subject, some outside observers have noted that support for BushCo™'s Iraq misadventures didn't really start to fall until Americans realized that it wasn't resulting in lower prices at the pumps.

Barring a massive landslide victory for Dems in November, followed by impeachment and conviction of BOTH Bush and Cheney, you have nearly 2 1/2 more years of this bozo to put up with. Who can predict what massive harm he can do to the country in that time?

Anonymous said...

Damien - "It would seem to me that a massive bombing campaign against Syria and Iran could produce some collateral damage to the Democrats in November. An idea not lost on the current admin. (I removed the extra "some" (: )"

I don't think so, because if Bush attacks Iran, Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz, thus closing one of the world's main oil spigots, and trapping the US warships in the Gulf to boot and effectively cutting-off the main supply line to the US military in Iraq and in the Gulf countries. It would also cut off the main and vital commercial supply lines to the rich Gulf emirates, which would more or less starve them of food and water and other essentials. Don't forget that Iran posesses Shkval supertorpedoes and other sophisticated missiles technologically ahead of any US missiles. The Strait of Hormuz is narrow, and Iran can launch Shkvals against US ships and tankers from any of its numerous coastal military/navy bases.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your links Vierotchka. I've heard the Hormuz argument before and it would seem likely on the face of it that there would be military difficulties in keeping the straits open. And don't forget that Iran has many Russian specialists at their nuclear sites and that China has huge natural gas contracts with Iran. They would have strong reasons for opposing any attacks on Iran. In a worst case scenario it could all end like this.

Anonymous said...

And since you mentioned Unocal, Len, I hope you don't mind me quoting from Robert Dreyfuss and his book "Devil's Game: How the US helped unleash fundamentalist Islam".


"During the U.S.-Taliban era of cooperation from 1994 to 1998 … a key Unocal consultant was a University of Nebraska academic named Thomas Gouttierre, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies there. During and after the Afghan jihad, Gouttierre’s center secured more than $60 million in federal grants for “educational” programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although the funding for Gouttierre’s work was funneled through the State Department’s Agency for International Development, the CIA was its sponsor. And it turned out that Gouttierre’s education program consisted of blatant Islamist propaganda, including the creation of children’s textbooks in which young Afghanis were taught to count by enumerating dead Russian soldiers and adding up Kalashnikov rifles, all of it imbued with Islamic fundamentalist rhetoric. The Taliban liked Gouttierre’s work so much that they continued to use the textbooks he created, and when a delegation of Taliban officials visited the United States in 1997 they made a special stop in Omaha to pay homage to Gouttierre. In 1999, another Taliban delegation, which included military commanders with ties to bin Laden and Al Qaeda, was escorted by Gouttierre on a tour of Mount Rushmore".

He's certainly a likeable chap, this Thomas Gouttierre. Any room for him at Guantanimo?

Unknown said...

sadbuttre, of course, Bush has never played chess or even checkers. Bush thinks "fienchetto" is something you get at Starbucks.

This idiot couldn't play a decent game of checkers. He should stick to mumblypeg and tiddlywinks, which are more his speed. Jeez, when the guy ran the Texas Rangers, he traded away Sammy Sosa, didn't he? But Chess? LMFAO!!

I think you've met this guy. LOL

But seriously, a better chess analogy would to say that his piece is pinned. The bulk of US military strength being engaged in Iraq

Well, that's a very good point and you are probably correct. I do believe his opening was flawed, however. But that does not, as you point out, describe his current situation. In any case, he has no good moves now.

I can't take credit for the Chessboard analogy in general, however; that is Brzezinski. Before that, it was called the "Great Game" by European observers.

...he was forked, subject to two simultaneous attacks at once

And it was a Knight Fork, threatening him from a different direction.

benmerc said...

Exactly, Israel re-creating a Lebanese failed state, thus allowing more terrorism to flourish. It makes you wonder ...Are all these people that stupid? Or, is this the desired result… cementing the reign of a militaristic police state in their country, very similar to what the Bush administration is trying to accomplish in the U.S..

And or maybe they had both collaborated in that Busch/co. was to take Iraq and then Israel would establish a war footing for entering Iran. I wonder if the joint leadership had planned this scenario all along.

Unknown said...

Fuzzflash, you wrote:

He was met with mute, bovine insouciance.

I am still on the floor laughing. You are a poet.

Is that scene from your screenplay? And, if you not writing one, why not? Briliant!

Re: Dante,

It’ll take years before Iraq can pump at full strength, and it is still unsure if the Americans are those who will enjoy most of it.

What a waste of human life. Our "fuhrer" is nuts.

Worisome: the headline on La Informacion this AM: "Guerra Mundial"

Unknown said...

Damien, I believe it was a year later that Taliban reps met with UNOCAL in Sugar Land, TX.

Unknown said...

A U.S. attack on Iran will start WWIII. Bush was cornered politically. He will end in a flaming Goetterdammerung, and with his sorry evil self —the world.