-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 8, 2007 11:42:14 AM PST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: "War in Iraq" OVER, Continuing ONLY As a Gambit in Bush's
War on Democrats
Surging: the Lie Admitted
A top U.S. commander in Iraq admits that the administration once
again misled the American public about Iraq
Barry Lando
Alternet, March 8, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48962/
Those congressmen who accepted the “surge” and the media who
supported it were sold a bill of goods. One of the top U.S.
commanders in Iraq admits it.
According to the New York Times , Lt. Gen Raymond Odierno, “the day-
to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq has recommended that the
heightened American troop levels there be maintained through
February 2008.”
That’s if the “surge” is to have any chance of success: bring
material benefits to the people of Baghdad, give them a sense of
calm and security, put a damper on the civil war and allow Iraqi
political leaders a chance to somehow patch thier country together.
Otherwise, the Times article makes clear, the consensus in the
Pentagon is that the buildup will fail. Indeed, the surge to date
is “little more than a trickle” and will only reach its goal of an
additional 28,000 troops on the ground by June. Yet, under
previously-announced plans, troops were supposed to be withdrawing
from Iraq already by September 2007.
According to many experts, even maintaining troop levels through
next February is far from enough. An unclassified version of the
latest National Intelligence Estimate states that “the Iraqi
Security Forces, particularly the Iraqi police, will be hard
pressed in the next 12 to 18 months to execute significantly
increased security responsibilities, and particularly to operate
independently against Shia militias with success.”
So—the question which has to be asked—and answered.
1. Are we really to believe that General Odierno and his bosses–
General David Petraeus, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the
gang in the White House—that they just discovered that the surge,
as sold to congress and the media, would not work? That the build
up by a U.S. military already stretched to the breaking point would
have to continue many months longer than indicated?
The answer to that question is a no-winner. If the generals didn’t
realize just a few months ago that the concept of a limited surge
as presented to the public was a farce, they were woefully ignorant
of the situation in Iraq and should have never been given command.
If they did lie—for that’s what we’re talking about—then they
should lose their jobs.
The obvious White House strategy was this:
Let’s at least get this surge thing rolling. Once underway, we
simply oblige our weak-kneed congress to up the ante. If not, we
accuse them of refusing to support our boys on the ground. We win
the 2008 elections with that strategy (as Tom Engelhardt and others
has so clearly pointed out.) Indeed, the administration has
already been able to increase the buildup from 21,000 to 28,000.
2. The administration has never been obliged to specify how long
the buildup would continue. When recently asked that question, for
instance, General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs blandly
told Pentagon reporters: “We’re looking, as we should, at each of
the three possibilities: hold what you have, come down, or plus up
if you need to,”
C’mon guys. Your generals on the ground have already told you the
current policy is doomed. It’s truth time. It’s also time for
everyone trying to avoid that issue—in congress and the media not
to mention most of the herd running for president- to pull their
heads out of the sand.
Do the folks in the Pentagon or anyone really believe that the U.S.
public and Congress will support higher troop levels well into an
election year? So what’s the point of the whole exercise? Sending
more American troops, not to mention thousands of Iraqis, to death
and dismemberment, pouring hundreds of billions more dollars down
the Iraqi drain.
And to what end?
To maintain a charade that will ultimately allow Bush and the
Republicans to blame a lily-livered Democratic congress and/or the
next occupant of the White House for America’s “defeat” in Iraq.
Barry Lando, a former 60 Minutes producer, is the author of "Web of
Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to
Kennedy to George W. Bush." He also blogs at Barrylando.com.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
