Communicating Vases And Quagmires

(Updated below) (Update II)

On July 31, 2007, I wrote an article titled "Operation Enduring Propaganda", concerning an unrelenting blitzkrieg-like, coordinated propaganda counter-strike to sell the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while making the case for more war in the Middle-East (especially Iran), through it all playing on the fear and insecurity of Americans.

In a follow-up article of August 13, 2007, titled "On Why The Surge Must Appear To Be Successful", I further discussed Operation Enduring Propaganda with regards to Iraq and the surge, and how it has been keeping in full swing despite the rise of discordant voices rising louder and louder - voices largely ignored by the MSM, of course. This then begged the question: why must there be at least an appearance of success with regards to the surge in Iraq? And my short answer was: Iran. I also discussed at the time the up-coming Petraeus-Crocker report (before news came out that the White House would be actually writing it), as follows (emphases mine):

"More than ever, there is an earnestness almost palpable in pushing the message that the surge in Iraq is working and that there is progress being achieved over there.

This may be simple preemption in anticipation of the up-coming Petraeus-Crocker report of mid-September. Indeed, and considering that said report is most likely to constitute nothing more than a politically convenient exercise in Bush approval for the decision to surge, of optimism, of continued war hawking and of outright disinformation (...), it is therefore good strategy to desensitize whatever is left of the critical thinking abilities of the American people by hammering away, in advance, that there is progress in Iraq and that the surge is working - consequently, the Petraeus-Crocker report will be that much easier swallowed and readily accepted as "truth". With a complicit MSM, of course.

(...) rather, we got treated to more "confirmations" that the surge is working and that all it needs is yet another Friedman Unit. In this respect, I am not even waiting for the Petraeus-Crocker report, because I know full well already what will be in it.

(...)

Hence, that is why the surge in Iraq must appear to be successful. Troops must remain in the Middle East theatre (especially right next door to Iran) because, among other predictable things, the mid-September Petraeus-Crocker report will expound much on how Iran has been hampering progress in Iraq, how it has further contributed to the chaos in the country, and why U.S. troops must remain in Iraq for at least another 10 years or so.

(...) expect a gradual crescendo of bogus accusations against Iran, of calls for strikes against Iran, of clamors for indeed a return of the draft, and the release of further cherry-picked, misleading N.I.E.'s.

By mid-September, everyone will be in a frenzy over Iran. All that it will take from there is either a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident, or something similar to which happened to those British sailors.

But don't you worry - the Iraq War will be quickly forgotten by the time the Iran War has begun ... thanks in large part to the MSM and especially to the big sell that the Iraqi Army will be taking care of its own.

Not convinced of this? Case in point: the Afghan War.

You heard it here folks: the way to success for the Iraqi surge goes through Iran."

In another follow up article on August 22, 2007, titled "Got War?", I wrote the following (emphases mine):

"(...) In between the increased chatter and justifications for reinstituting the draft, the presence of U.S. aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and the already on-going black ops in Iran, a relentless propaganda offensive (which I have dubbed Operation Enduring Propaganda) keeps on being waged on two simultaneous fronts: the success of the surge in Iraq and building an incremental case for war against Iran.

(...) the MSM continues its solemn and sworn duty to spread the message that the surge is working, in anticipation of the upcoming Petraeus-Crocker White House September report - which will be saying exactly that.

(...)

But the point is this: the surge must at least appear to be successful in the minds of Americans so that A) the Iraq adventure does not come off as the paragon of utter incompetence, stupidity and failure that it is; in order for B) justify the need for troops to remain in Iraq to keep the surge going; and therefore C) pre-establishing a launching pad for the soon-to-come Iran War.

(...) For a while now, IED's and other weapons allegedly made in Iran but used by Iraqi insurgents have become nothing short of a casus belli for the Bush administration and their pro-Iran war supporters.

(...)

The meme has now apparently become "Everyone now seems to agree that Iran poses a threat to the United States ..."

(...)

In essence, what we have here is a replay of the build up to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, but at a more insidious and slower pace. Nevertheless, an Iran War will be happening in a TV near you within six months.

The Iran War will be mostly conducted through aerial bombardments - and possibly (at least low-yield) nuclear weapons thrown in here and there. In the absence of a draft, the troops stationed in Iraq will serve largely to "hold the fort" while aerial bombardments, from Iraq air bases and/or the aforementioned U.S. aircraft carriers, pound away at Iran in order to send it howling with righteous rage and rancor back to the stone age.

(...)

The obvious question here is: Why? What's in it for the Bush administration, or their neocon and Christianist allies?

Whether it is a belief in some sort of Manifest Destiny, an intractable acceptance of the (false) principle that "might makes right", a desire for de facto Imperialism (whether Holy in nature or not), outright incompetence, sheer madness, or all of the above - there will be nonetheless war with Iran.

(...)

(If only because) the Iranians will have been spooked enough by the rattling of sabers from the U.S. that they will actually launch a pre-emptive strike - whether in the Persian Gulf or across the Iraq border."

And last week (August 29, 2007) in my article titled "Iran: Here We Go ...", I wrote this:

"(...) it is not a matter of "if", but of "when".

The war with Iran is coming - and make no mistake about it."

Interestingly, others are finally catching on that there is indeed a coordinated snow job in progress with regards to keeping troops in Iraq, the "apparent" success of the surge, and a looming war in Iran. All that is left for them is to call this Operation Enduring Propaganda, as I have. A few examples (emphases mine):

Dan Froomkin (08/16/2007): Who's report is it, anyway? - "(...) the supposedly trustworthy mid-September reckoning of military and political progress in Iraq by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker - is instead looking more like a White House con job in the making."

Glenn Greenwald (08/29/2007): The president's escalating war rhetoric on Iran - "In other words, we "seek" a new government in Iran. Are there really people left who believe, with confidence, that Bush is going to leave office without commencing or provoking a military confrontation with Iran? (...) The path we are on -- with 160,000 of our troops in Iran's neighbor, escalating war-threatening rhetoric, and increasingly provocative acts -- is obviously the path to war."

Clammyc (09/01/2007): "...You don't introduce new products in August" - " (...) and now, the New and Improved™ bullshit, um, lies, um, irrelevant half truths, um, innuendo, excuses for bombing Iran will be rolled out over the next weeks (...) And as the airwaves are blanketed with how we don’t want to see a mushroom cloud, or that the last thing this world needs is Iran exercising influence in Iraq or that if we leave, Iran will fill the "power vacuum" (shouldn’t this have been considered in 2002?), there needs to be major pushback. Not this same crap again. These claims were not credible back in 2002 and they are the EXACT same claims again. These people are simply not believable."

Ray McGovern (09/02/2007): Do we have the courage to stop war with Iran? - "(...) It is going to happen, folks (...) President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq. (...) Bush and Cheney have clearly decided to use alleged Iranian interference in Iraq as the preferred casus belli."

Paul Krugman (09/03/2007): Snow job in the desert - "The administration, this time relying on Gen. David Petraeus to play the Colin Powell role, has had remarkable success creating the perception that the “surge” is succeeding, even though there’s not a shred of verifiable evidence to suggest that it is. (...) So here we go again. It appears that many influential people in this country have learned nothing from the last five years. And those who cannot learn from history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it."

Allen L. Rolland (09/03/2007): Petraeus will pull a Powell in mid September - "General Petraeus's mid September White House drafted report will not only claim progress where there is little but, more importantly, will blame Iran. (...) this time its General David Petraeus giving his long awaited list of justified fabrications on Bush's Surge to the United States Congress in order to continue an illegal occupation as well as rationalize a preemptive attack on the sovereign nation of Iran. (...) The main purpose of Petraeus's White House drafted report is to blame Iran for any roadblocks towards success in Iraq - thus setting the stage for a massive air strike against Iran before the end of the year, if not the month."

Chris Hedges (09/03/2007): The next quagmire - "(...) we live in an age where dialogue is dismissed and empathy is suspect. We prefer the illusion that we can dictate events through force. It hasn’t worked well in Iraq. It hasn’t worked well in Afghanistan. And it won’t work in Iran. But those who once tried to reach out and understand, who developed expertise to explain the world to us and ourselves to the world, no longer have a voice in the new imperial project. We are instead governed and informed by moral and intellectual trolls. (...) Our area specialists in the State Department are ignored by the ideologues driving foreign policy. Their complex view of the world is an inconvenience. And foreign correspondents are an endangered species, along with foreign coverage. (...) The arrogant call for U.S. hegemony over the rest of the globe is making enemies of a lot of people who might be predisposed to support us, even in the Middle East. (...) These kinds of words, pouring out of the administration, send a clear message to any Iranian: You are in trouble. Bend to our will or we destroy you. These were the same words, with a few minor changes, that the Bush administration delivered to Saddam Hussein."

And so on and so forth.

Operation Enduring Propaganda: better late than never in recognizing it for what it is and its purpose.

Now, allow me to go one step further.

I assume all you folks are familiar with communicating vases? Roughly stating, these are receptacles united by a tube and in which a liquid remains at the same level.

I suspect that this is essentially what Bush-Cheney have in mind:

A) The U.S. goes into Afghanistan.

B) Upon launching the Iraq War, N.A.T.O. is "recruited" to supply forces in Afghanistan. In fact, the Iraq War left little choice to the allies of the U.S. into committing forces in Afghanistan, if only to help out.

C) Once the Iran War will be launched, Bush will have already been asking for N.A.T.O. to help in Iraq, allowing the phasing out of U.S. troops committed to Iraq and therefore freeing them for Iran (or at least, defend the Iraq borders against Iranian forces). This will force N.A.T.O. countries to either extend their presence in Afghanistan (like Canada), commit forces in Iraq (like Canada) or inject more forces in Afghanistan (like the U.K.) or even Iraq - the principle being the same as in "B", i.e. that with the U.S. being committed to an Iran War, allies must help out more in order to prevent total anarchy in Iraq. Alternately, U.N. peace forces will have no choice but to go to Afghanistan, while N.A.T.O. forces redeploy to Iraq.

See? Communicating vases.

The problem here of course is that so many N.A.T.O./U.S. soldiers and Afghani/Iraqi/Iranian will be dying in the process.

In addition, what we will have will be in effect communicating quagmires, as allegoric vases, each with same levels of insurgencies, civil wars and increased terrorism - all equal with each other in chaos and death.

In closing, I would like to state the following: it is my sincerest hope that I am dead wrong on this.

In fact, I will be the first to announce to the world that I have been proven wrong indeed - and gladly so.

But right now - the state of things as it currently stands does not look encouraging to this effect.

Tragically enough.


Update: 09/05/2007 - When wishful thinking replaces resistance: Why Bush can get away with attacking Iran. This article nicely deconstructs the main arguments which serve to reassure ourselves that Bush will not, or can not, launch an Iran war. The main conclusion is this:

"The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the "reassuring arguments" cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren't, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others might do the job."

And in closing, the author echoes sentiments that I've already expressed herein:

"This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong."

'Nuff said.


Update II: 09/06/2007 - Even the infamous Pat Buchanan sees the writing on the Iranian Wall (emphases mine): "(...) Confident of victory this fall on the Hill, Bush is now moving into Phase III in his War on Terror: First, Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran. (...) This is a case for war. Indeed, it's an assertion by President Bush that Iran is colluding in acts of war against the soldiers and Marines and allies of the United States. What does he intend to do? (...) This suggests that U.S. forces may already be engaged in combat operations against Iranians. Who or what can stop this drive to war? (...) What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, at a time and place of his choosing, and sooner than we think? Nothing and no one." All of this, along with my recent post here on the suspicious timing of Canada in sending a war ship to the Persian Gulf - not looking very encouraging, eh?


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Progressive Historians, at NION, at A Creative Revolution, at Suzie-Q, and at Diatribune)