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 two fronts are intimately related - allow me to expound on this herein.
First, on concerning the success of the Iraq surge. By now, we've all read the
sober and bluntly accurate Op-Ed from those seven brave and dedicated U.S. Army professionals with regards to the actual failure of the surge. One of the most startling and telling passages of this historic Op-Ed is the following (emphases mine):
"The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense."
Interestingly, this same passage furthermore describes almost to a tee the situation in the
Afghanistan War, with the exception that you have Afghanis instead of Iraqis, Talibans instead of Sunni extremists, and Warlord militiamen instead of Shiite ones.
Likewise quite telling was this other passage from the soldiers' Op-Ed (emphases mine again):
"Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side."
This echoes the core of a study in last June of this year,
which concluded among other things (emphases mine once again):
"a major power is much more likely to fail when its war aim requires some sort of co-operation on the part of the adversary or the citizens on the ground, in order to change a despised foreign or domestic policy, for example, or quell sectarian violence, or prop up a regime that's on shaky ground (...) In other words, brute force works until you need the support of the people or the enemy to toe the line."
Even a DoD contractor
chimed in (emphases mine):
"Although I work in Baghdad, I have no idea what Baghdad looks like. I have been told by soldiers that it is 'like one of those Mexican border towns'. I don’t live in the 'heavily fortified' Green Zone, which, although heavily fortified, has been getting hit with mortars on a daily basis. No, I live on an Army base (...) The majority of my co-workers are Iraqi, and every single one has been deeply affected by the war. Everyone knows someone who has been killed or kidnapped, whether a family member or a friend. It’s a daily occurrence, and they feel helpless, frustrated and, of course, very sad. Those that had the means have gone to either Jordan or Syria. The others are trapped. No country wants them (...) Every day, the Iraqis risk their lives to come to work because they have no choice (...) In Baghdad there is usually one hour of electricity a day and hardly any water. People pitch in and buy a generator and get just enough electricity out of it to have the ceiling fan and refrigerator run (...) People have to wait in line overnight in order to get gas for their cars (...) We just drive up to one of the many gas depots and fill our cars up. I can’t figure out how we have such easy access to gasoline and the Iraqis have none (...) Most Iraqis feel that they will indeed be killed, whether by the Sunni militia, the Shiite militia, the American Army or a car bomb. They live in constant fear. Could you imagine having to live like that? And why are they suffering so terribly? Because we are giving them freedom. Freedom is something that I fear the Iraqis will not have any time in the near future (...) We have made a mess of Iraq, and the Iraqis, who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, are the ones that are paying the price (...) I feel that the ship will eventually sink and we will have caused the most terrible suffering for a people that just want a day when they can leave their house without the fear of being kidnapped or killed. For the Iraqis, freedom certainly isn’t free: they are paying a heavy price for it."
These passages altogether describe
exactly what is indeed happening with Iraq and Afghanistan, and why both wars will require
many years if not
decades of further military engagement - provided that any "victorious" resolution is actually achievable ... which remains highly doubtful (recent/additional evidence to this effect
here,
here,
here,
here and
here). In fact, British commanders are now telling their Prime Minister to withdraw from Iraq
without delay, while my very own (neocon)
Mini Leader and Prime Minister has publicly affirmed that Canadian troops will be
out of Afghanistan by 2009 - despite President Bush's
pithy praises of Canadian "successes" there.
Of course, it goes without saying that
Operation Enduring Propaganda can't have, or tolerate, any
real world realism with regards to the Afghanistan War or the Iraq War. Consequently, the seven U.S. Army professionals mentioned above have been either
dismissed by serious MSM show hosts and/or pundits for essentially "not knowing what they are talking about" (incredibly, yes) or
criticized by
so-called experts pro-war fraudulent shills for "not understanding the whole picture" (incredibly again, yes). Furthermore, the soldiers' Op-Ed got essentially no coverage in the various MSM outlets, as if it never was written, in sharp contrast to the
glaring coverage a previous,
infamously dishonest other Op-Ed got ... because it clamed essentially that the
surge is working and there is progress in Iraq (as many others, I likewise previously discussed this Op-Ed -
here and
here). In addition, those Senators who return from a short visit in Iraq and report that
the escalation is “totally and utterly” failing (in contrast to
those who are Bush supporters) see their words
spun to a ludicrous degree so as to be interpreted by the MSM as "
validation for the surge", "
praise of surge results" or "
praise for surge success" (I kid you not). Through it all, the dedicated MSM remains steadfast in
covering little or not at all the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, while dutifully looking the other way as President Bush decides to
brush aside any need for benchmarks in assessing success in Iraq. However, 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.
After all, we must not forget that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars constitute cornerstones in "
writing the first chapter of laying the foundation of peace in the 21st century" - whatever the hell that means.
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.
Which brings me to the second front of
Operation Enduring Propaganda:
building an incremental case for war against Iran. In a previous article of mine some nine days ago, on
why the Iraq surge must appear successful, I concluded sarcastically that "
the way to success for the Iraq surge goes through Iran" - the rationale being that troops (which are at
their highest numbers ever) must remain in the Middle East theatre, especially right next door to Iran. Now, I've already discussed time and again how the Bush administration, aided and abetted by the MSM as well as their neocon and Christianist allies, has been making a case for a war with Iran (read said articles of mine
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here). 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. Despite very circumstantial and largely unproven evidence that Iran and, especially, its elite Army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), are indeed fabricating/supplying such weapons to the insurgents, the Bush administration has decided nevertheless to designate the IRGC as a "
specially designated global terrorist organization" - using a much
discredited recent N.I.E. in support for such a drastic decision. Of course, the MSM is dutifully reporting what the Bush administration (and its "unnamed officials") are saying in their case against Iran - with, not surprisingly, Fox news being a relentless and unrepenting
repeat offender in this.
The meme has now
apparently become "
Everyone now seems to agree that Iran poses a threat to the United States ..."
Just think about this, if only for a moment: what else is there left to do after designating a country's elite army as a terrorist organization?
Why,
launch a military campaign against it, of course.
Not convinced? Then how about the recent agreement between Iran and the United Nations atomic authority, concerning a timetable for Tehran to answer concerns about its nuclear program, which has been
deemed "not sufficient" by the U.S.?
Same thing as when President Bush kept declaring "not sufficient" the ouvertures of the Taliban with regards to Osama bin Laden prior to the Afghanistan War, or the reports from U.N. inspectors prior to the Iraq War indicating that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs.
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 bombarments, 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.
Not unlike what Israel did to Lebanon last summer.
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 way to success for the Iraq surge goes through Iran*.
And 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.
Not unlike Israel
did in the 1967 Six-Day war.
In parting, let me leave you with this bit of news: Kurdish sources are reporting a build-up of thousands of Iranian troops
along the Northern border with Iraq ...
Operation Enduring Propaganda: making it easier for you to accept and ingest more FUBAR war with those already on-going FUBAR wars of choice.
Food for thought, no?
*: Well, according to the very serious Joseph Lieberman (Sen., I-CT), the
road to victory in Iraq now goes through Syria. An Iran War must be indeed a sure thing already if the good Senator has stopped
rattling his saber against Iran in order to now rattle his saber
vis à vis Syria. More food for thought, eh?
Update: 08/23/2007 - A new N.I.E. on Iraq came out - it is
filled with non-surprises.
Q.E.D. - once again.
(Cross-posted at
DKos, at
NION and at
Diatribune)
