It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dangerous Intentions Behind The Bush43 Surge In Baghdad

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I have come to this conclusion concerning the President’s “surge” theory. Let’s admit he knows all the reasons why a “surge” will not pacify Baghdad. He also knows the limits on PM Malawki. Hey, we wrote Iraq's constitution. We meant to prevent the rise of another Saddam type strong man. Now we need one. Preferably with democratic principles. And we hand picked the people in the present Iraqi government, to a large extent. We certainly vetted all the candidates“allowed” to run for the Iraqi Parliament. The Iraqis were free to choose who they preferred, but only from a list we had prepared and approved.

Yesterday - Friday - I heard a reporter repeat visiting Speaker Pelosi’s remark that the #2 and #3 levels people in the various cabinets have not yet been designated because of internal politicking and so on. Which means the government is not yet in place. We are asking an intentionally weak Iraqi government to do what a strong American presence (apparently) cannot do. Pacify Baghdad.

An anti-American reporter carried on the US edition of BBC Friday said that between 100,000-200,000 Iranians had infiltrated Iraq and the Iraq army and police. (That’s a catch-all claim that could be true, but without a numerical breakdown, it could also be meaningless.) 2 weeks ago we attacked - well, it was first reported attack but it seems unlikely it was the first such attack - a building close to the Iran Iraq border which PM Malawki later said was a proto “consulate” building. Hence enjoying diplomatic immunity. Iraq has already had mid-level conversations in Damascus and Tehran, but with very little note here in the US of A. Hey, Iraq will be there long after we are but a bad memory. Lying between Syria and Iran.

In the State of the Union message, Bush43 publicly and sternly warned the Iranians “we are going to stop you” from interfering in the internal affairs of (our) Iraq. I wrote “our” Iraq because Bushr43 did not even hint his use of force would be done in consultation with Iraq, nor even with the Coalition Forces, i.e., the UK. It was going to be our own unilateral, pre-emptive or preventive decision to make. This “surge” thing - as Bush41 used to say - is being sent to Iraq for the purpose of allowing us to “seal” the Iran Iraq border.

Machiavelli’s Chessboard. Bush43 hopes - cares not - that by our strong actions against Iranians in Iraq he can provoke Iran to some overt action that will justify - in his mind - a half dozen loaded B52s unloading over Iran. Add a couple dozen ship fired cruise missiles. He may not care whether that attack ends like Clinton’s on Afghan or Reagan’s on Libya or starts WW3. It would have predictably good domestic political consequences because the public likes a leader who “gets things done.” Rambo-esque. We are not against a war because of the death or destruction. Americans are against a war we are not wining. We know well the difference between collateral damage and casualties. Win War Good, Lose War, Bad.

If I was a property insurance company in Iran, I’d be cancelling a lot of policies.


[edit on 1/27/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Well I normally do not agree with anything you say, just a difference in policitical opinions, but I do absolutly agree with you here..

To further that evidence that this is possibly a build up against Iranians, President Bush on Friday declared that any Iranian (non diplomat or civilian) would be killed, and actually hunted down. We have all but declared war upon Iran, at least within the Iraqi borders. Now wether you see that a good thing or a bad thing is your own personall opinion. I for one, would prefer not to be drafted and head out to a desert war. Just my opinion though.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   


posted by Rockpuck

I normally do not agree with you, but I do agree with you here . . To further that evidence this [surge] is a build up against Iranians, President Bush declared that any Iranian (non diplomat or civilian) would be killed, and actually hunted down. We have all but declared war upon Iran, at least within the Iraqi borders. Now wether you see that a good thing or a bad thing is your own personal opinion. I would prefer not to be drafted and head out to a desert war. Just my opinion though. [Edited by Don W]



The ancient and accepted “Law of Hot Pursuit” allows uninvited crossing of borders when the culprit is “in sight.” We have no capacity and have no allies in any land invasion of Iran. The Brits have already said they are coming out of Iraq this summer. By about 50%. PM Blair agreed to leave office in May. Gordon Brown is in.

We ought to admit to ourselves that even the so-called smart bombs are no more than 75% accurate and that % may be too high. My point being that bombing from the air is not likely to have any benefit to us worth half the cost the unwelcome consequences we would sustain around the world. That unilateral action - attacking Iran - could end with the US being welcome to talk only with North Korea.

To draft 500,000 men (and women?) would require 6 to 12 months. To train them barely smart enough to get killed would take another 6 to 12 months. On that basis I pronounce your concern over finding yourself in the desert is misplaced. Therefore I shall not be so easily removed of you, nor you of me.



[edit on 1/27/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
the iranian insurgency is a part of what the Surge is for,
but less so is it a ploy of baiting Iran to escalate...

to my eye, the Surge is meant to squelch the Madhi Army and other indigenous Militas including remnant Baathists, which threaten to un-do the puppet government the USA installed there.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Donwhite, do you think that the rest of the world will sit down and allow US to attack Iran without a response?

Specially the countries that have already financial ties with Iran?

How one man like Bush made all kind of decisions even when he is right now at the lowest any president has been in our nation when it comes to public opinion and the Iraqi war.

Will our nation just sit and let this president got into another conflict? Without his own peoples approval.

That means that something is definitely wrong with our president.

Has any president in the US been diagnose with metal incompetency yet?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I love fairy tales, and I would love to believe the Pres, but there have to be times I must wipe the stardust from my eyes.

DW, have you come across this yet?
Reason for Surge
Interesting. I don't want this to be the reason,

And if the surge is for Iran, God help us. As you stated, no time to conscript and ready the half million needed for a land war. If the bombs fall, would, God forbid, any be at all nuclear, for a "quick end" to a war?

Marg, does Bush's health insurance cover mental health? If not, I'll be willing to send money for therapy.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
marg6043: Donwhite, do you think that the rest of the world will sit down and allow US to attack Iran without a response?

Don: Tony Blair was asked to quit. The EU has opted for peace. War no more. Russia is too weak to pay their army on time. China has internal problems that keep its army busy. India is a pacifist nation except for Kashmir and Pakistan. Canada will just mumble under its breath. Aussie’s love us. Japan has already been nuked 2 times and know when to speak and when to listen.

The ABC countries of South America - Argentina, Brazil and Chile for non-Spanish speakers - have also declared SA to be a nuclear free zone and are not in any position to do much more than grumble. Mexico just had a 50/50 election, so that means the “winner” is not strong. Chavez has taken a big bite and had better chew it for a while before looking for more to eat. He is definitely on the Bush43 radar. Fidel is next to death and Raul is wondering how long he will last after the funeral.

It comes down to this, M-43, there is no one left to speak for Iran but Kim Jong Il. And as for Jong, I’ve heard a truck load of Cointreau Liqueur and 12 dancing girls will distract him for months.


[edit on 1/27/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Good points, DW. Takes a little edge off the situation for me for now. I can take my nap peacefully.

Re "Rambo-esque" I think he's more like Colonel Walter E. Kurtz. Oh, oh, I think I just scared myself again...hope I don't have a bad dream


[edit on 27-1-2007 by desert]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

posted by desert

DW, have you come across this yet? Interesting. I don't want this to be the reason, And if the surge is for Iran, God help us. [Edited by Don W]



Tremendous work here, Mr Desert.



In 1965, Tom Paxton sang,

Lyndon Johnson told the nation
Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn’t really war,
We’re sending 50,000 more
To help save Vietnam from the Vietnamese.

Four decades later, Bush is asking us to save Iraq from the Iraqis.

" . . Who asked the waiter to deliver this dish? Who asked for the 21,000 soldiers? We know the US military didn’t ask for the 21,000 troops. We know the Iraqi government didn’t ask for the 21,000 troops. So who wants the occupation to continue? The answer is in Riyadh . . the House of Saud, the Saudis are concerned that a US pull-out will leave their Sunni brothers in Iraq to be slaughtered by Shia militias. More important, the Saudis will not tolerate a Shia-majority government in Iraq controlled by the Shia mullahs of Iran. A Shia combine would threaten Saudi Arabia’s hegemony in the OPEC oil cartel. In other words, it’s about the oil.

So what’s the solution? What’s my plan? How do we get out of Iraq? Answer: the same way we got out of ‘Nam. In ships. imagine that somehow we could rip away the strings that allow Cheney and Rove and Abdullah to control our puppet president and he somehow, like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, suddenly grew a brain. His speech last night would have sounded like this: My fellow Americans. Iraq is going to hell in a handbag. we need to send in 21,000 more troops. So I’ve just wired King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and told him to send them.”

www.gregpalast.com...-1567

From Greg Palast, author of the New York Times bestseller, “Armed Madhouse.” He reports on Iraq and oil for BBC-TV.


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 27/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
This thread is very disturbing...

God, I hope you people are wrong!

Few can deny that things are looking pretty ominous on the chess board. What I can't figure out, is this by Bush's design, or as in this thread, by others?

How do these things play into any of it?

Executive Order 12866

Gonzales Installs Bush Loyalists in Key Positions Using Patriot Act Loophole

Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus

I could keep going...







[edit on 27-1-2007 by loam]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Interesting that we haven't had the "turn it into a glass parking lot" comments yet. But seriously do people here remember a guy called Hitler ? he was going great guns till he tried to fight on 3 fronts and bit off more than he could chew.

Germany back then is probably a good parallel as they were so far technologically advanced relative to other countries and were a real superpower before the term was even created. I personally think the US need to re-evaluate the worth of the Middle East, noone wants to see the world get draggged down due to some despot's crazed delusions of grandeur like we had in WWII.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Thank you, DW. I always enjoy your thoughts and insights. Civil discourse and ideas/information are what ATS is all about.

Mazzroth...what, more to interrupt my sleep?
Hmmm, an apt comparison? Germany's military prominence and dominance...Going further back, I read somewhere once that Spain's demise was caused by having to spend more money to protect the transport of Her New World's riches (gold) than its value. Will we spend more to protect our "national interest" (oil, as truthfully spoken by a U.S general) than to to obtain it?

Loam, we cannot forget that Cheney was a signatory of the Statement of Principles for The Project for a New American Century
PNAC Cheney
It seems IMO that Cheney is Edgar Bergen to Bush's Charlie McCarthy. Cheney has played the father figure in this administration; poor George answers to a heavenly father. Is he happily listening to voices in his head?--maybe not...
Incompetent?

A PNAC co-founder has blamed the debacle on this administration. (SNAFU I say.)
Bill Kristol

I have always harbored the sneaking suspicion that Israel blackmails us by threatening to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Totally IMO.

Loam, I hope I'm totally wrong.

Oh, I forgot to add, is embedded in Kristol's interview the seed of the current surge? 20,000? Interesting. PNAC still bending Bush's ear. PNAC in charge.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by desert]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
DonW, China may be busy internally but its priorities could certainly change. Didn't they sign a 100 billion dollar deal with Iran to supply energy?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I'm in the British army, my regiment normally gets sent in very early on in major conflicts. I joined op telic 1 two weeks before the missiles started flying!

I have heard nothing about going to Iran, My commander assures me that he knows nothing. I think if America do try to invade iran they might well be going alone. That or the surge of troops is intended as people here are saying to draw Iran into doing something stupid.

Be safe.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Just a thought, and perhaps it is a bit out there...

What if we did take the fight to Iran - drawing insurgent forces out of Iraq and giving the Government time to solidify its position - then hand over the responsibility of securing Iraq to Russia / China - in essence giving them the spoils of war?

Hmm - we secure Iraq, win the war and pacify the regional powers.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
You really want to know what this troop surge is going to really do?

It is going to give some Baghdad neighborhoods and other areas of Iraq an American patrol twice a day and not once a day. That is how little impact this amount of troops is going to have. That is the truth period.

Let some American to Iran conspiracy lead you to believe, like all those the we will invade Iran in 2006 threads. Sure Bush would like to beat on Iran, but it ain't happening.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   


posted by Jimmy1880

I'm in the British army, my regiment normally gets sent in very early on in major conflicts. I joined op telic 1 two weeks before the missiles started flying! I have heard nothing about going to Iran. My commander assures me that he knows nothing. I think if America do try to invade Iran they might well be going alone. That or the surge of troops is intended as people here are saying to draw Iran into doing something stupid. Be safe. [Edited by Don W]



I say confidently that 3,000 Brits (out of 7,200) will be out of Iraq by our Labor Day, the first Monday in September. For 3 reasons. One, last year Tony Blair had to agree to step down this May or face a no confidence vote. He agreed. Second, the PM designate Gordon Brown is no fan of Bush43 nor of the American fiasco in Iraq. A strategic failure at the top, not an operational failure on the ground. As in France and Italy in War 2, the soldiers outperformed the generals.

What I didn't say is those 3,000 men may find themselves in Afghan, boosting the NATO effort to re-take it from the revived and now energized - say opium - Taliban. Another miscue by the Neo Con Gang of Four, Bush43, VP Cheney, the Oberfuhrer now gone and the Birmingham Songbird, Condo Rice.

And third, your Foreign Minister said publicly that she believes the UK would begin turning over to the Iraqis those areas under their jurisdiction, which is double-speak for “we’re coming home.” If Labor does not make a significant move to distance itself from Bush43 - rebuked here on November 7 - then they are putting themselves in peril.

Aside. Because we are not a parliamentary system, our president remains in power until January 20, 2009. But don’t overlook our president was intended - in 1787 - to take the place of your monarch who has a lifetime appointment.

If you have not read the short book, “Pegasus Bridge” by the late Stephen Ambrose, the leading American historian of World War Two, I believe you will find it instructive and entertaining. In his book, he followed the planning and preparation for that most critical operation to capture intact 2 key bridges leading out of Normandy, set for 6 hours before D-Day began. Major John Howard, commanding. I recommend it to anyone. It ought to be mandatory reading at our West Pont and all military personnel.

Q. What is “op telic 1" please? My guess, operations tele-communications, hq? A telephone switchboard?

Foot Note: cf. the American’s 1942 B25 Doolittle raid over Tokyo (16 planes, 80 aircrew) got for its leader, Lt. Col. James Doolittle, a Congressional Medal of Honor - i.e., Victoria Cross equal - and a direct promotion to Brigadier General. By 1945 he was a 4 star general. Although that raid was of much greater propaganda value, the Pegasus Bridge operation was vastly more complex, required many times the amount of training. Both missions were carried off with exceptional alacrity and no shortage of individual heroism. Major John Howard of the "Ox and Bucks" - Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry - led the bridge assault from its conception to its completion. Howard began the war as a Major and retired after the war as a major. Unlike Americans who are seriously rank conscious, the English look rank-sparse?


[edit on 1/28/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Operation Telic = War in Iraq

the number denominates what part of the war, the number goes up by 1 roughly every 6 months. We are currently on Op Telic 9.

I've been sent to 1, 3 and 7

Sorry I shouldn't use jargon

btw the war in Afganhistan is called Operation Heric.

The point I was trying to get across in my above post is that all indications show a likely unilateral attack by the US on Iran, This is a scary prospect!



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

I say confidently that 3,000 Brits (out of 7,200) will be out of Iraq by our Labor Day,


I concur, although I could quite easily see Bush's surge in Baghdad taking on the Shia Militias deliberately to make life harder for the British troops in Basra battling Shia militias, which would make it look humiliating for the British if they withdrew as the Shia militias intensified their attacks against British troops, to the extent Blair would change his mind about a withdraw, and make it harder for Brown to contradict him when he becomes PM.


Originally posted by donwhite
What I didn't say is those 3,000 men may find themselves in AFghan, boostin gthe NATO effort to re-take it from the revived and now energized - say opium - Taliban. Another miscue by the Neo Con Gang of Fourr, Bush43, VP Cheney, the Oberfuhrer now gone and the Birmingham Songbird, Condo Rice.


Precisely.


Originally posted by donwhite
And third, your Foreign Minister said publicly that she believes the UK would begin turning over to the Iraqis those areas under their jurisdiction, which is double-speak for “we’re coming home.” If Labor does not make a significant move to distance itself from Bush43 - rebuked here on November 7 - then they are putting themselves in peril.


I can only hope Brown is different from Blair, who to me is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever, ever had. Worse than Thatcher, and that's saying something.

The way Blair has been so slavish to Bush, 'yes sir, no sir' and doing his bidding has threatened the UK's credibility to the point of no return, and further threatens the UK's sovereignty as an independent country further.



Originally posted by donwhite
If you have not read the short book, “Pegasus Bridge” by the late Stephen Ambrose, the leading American historian of World War Two, I believe you will find it instructive and entertaining. In his book, he followed the planning and preparation for that most critical operation to capture intact 2 key bridges leading out of Normandy, set for 6 hours before D-Day began. Major John Howard, commanding. I recommend it to anyone. It ought to be mandatory reading at our West Pont and all military personnel.


I agree. It may interest you to learn I have been to Pegasus Bridge, during a tour of Normandy three years ago. The original bridge is placed in a museum nearby (walking distance actually) and a new one, nigh on a replica which allows bigger boats through the canal, is in it's place.

Stone monuments mark where the glider planes landed (so close) and the cafe (which was the first French house to be liberated on D-Day) is still open to all, run by the same family as in 1944.

The hospital which Wally Parr unknowingly fired at with the German Anti Tank gun is still there, as is the gun.

I do recommend the trip.



Originally posted by donwhite
the Pegasus Bridge operation was vastly more complex, required many times the amount of training, and was carried off with exceptional alacrity by all involved, to the credit of Major John Howard who led the assault with soldiers of the "Ox and Bucks" - Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry- Who I believe began the war a Major and retired afterwards as a major. Unlike Americans who are seriously rank conscious, the English are rank-sparse?


British, not English on their own.

Major Howard was perhaps never promoted because he did what was expected of him and so there was no need for him to be promoted for a job he was asked to do, no matter how brilliant and extraordinary it was.

As far as I am aware, Major Howard is still alive and well and every June 6th travels to Pegasus Bridge with his dwindling and aging soldiers (including Wally Parr) to commemorate their actions, and friends lost.

I had always found Stephen Ambrose to be disparagingly, patronisingly and obnoxiously anti-British in his other books, but in Pegasus Bridge he atoned for that by writing about a brave British action.

Anyway, I digress. back to the topic at hand.

The US attacking Iran and it's consequences would be horrific.

We can talk about the US attack itself, which will be horrific, but the consequences I fear will be horrific in reply.

It will all be very horrific, worst case scenario.

And the best case scenario is not 'best' either.





[edit on 28-1-2007 by Regensturm]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

posted by Jimmy1880

Operation Telic = War in Iraq . . the number denominates what part of the war, the number goes up by 1 roughly every 6 months. We are currently on Op Telic 9. I've been sent to 1, 3 and 7 Sorry I shouldn't use jargon . . BTW the war in Afghanistan is called Operation Heric. The point I was trying to get across in my above post is that all indications show a likely unilateral attack by the US on Iran, This is a scary prospect! [Edited by Don W]



Q. Are “Telic” and “Heric” shortened words, derived from familiar words or acronyms? I note “-ic” ends both words, leaving “Tel-“ and Her-“ for me to guess about. Even though it escapes me, I insist any word describing such an important undertaking must have some logical source. Like Norse gods? Help, please.

After we adopted the volunteer armed forces in 1973-1975 - I was last discharged from the USAF in 1964 - our reserves or home guards were revamped to better fit with the active duty persons. This was primarily for cost savings. Activating or recalling reserves has at least one major flaw, that is, typical active duty pay is not equal to the civilian pay the person recalled was earning. The overall savings rate of Americans is the lowest in the Western world which points to many such men lacking personal resources to see them through a dramatic cut in pay. Not good for morale.

Because most of the reserves (I’m including National Guardsmen) are a decade older that conscripts in prior wars - usually 18 year olds - they are more likely than not to be married and have young children. Long separations from home have always been the bane of marriages. On a 5 years basis, American marriages have a 50%+ failure rate. This has only bad consequences.

Well, I could go on, but I’m trying to say that America’s military manpower resources are not sufficient to let the Commander in Chief invade any country, especially a large one like Iran. Why do you think we have begged - and probably paid cash - to get NATO into Afghan? Aerial bombing is largely ineffective as a strategic option, IMO. Bush43 is trying to accomplish by braggadocio what he is unwilling to talk about with Iran or incapable of forcing on the Iranians.

I have a scale you might find of interest . It is my level of concern over the violations of the NPT - nuclear non proliferation treaty. (I favor world wide nuclear disbarment. I lay much blame for the current state of atomic affairs on Charles deGaulle.)

India 40% object.
Pakistan 60% object.
Israel 50% object.
Iran 75% object.
North Korea 90% object.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, 100% object

I imagine the US has placed a half dozen A-bombs in the “custody and control” of the Japanese. But for sure not the Taiwanese. And I think the South Koreans eschew A-bombs. I have not heard of any other countries that are even tinkering with nuclear weapons.


[edit on 1/28/2007 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join