Keith, On this, I think that Bush is in for the long haul. He is making very unpopular moves in the US by calling up more military reserves. It appears that he intends to reduce the size of the troops and bring Iraqis on board in large numbers. This is what he should have done initially.
Bill On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:14:26 +0000 Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent change of > heart > of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring democracy to the > Middle > East and that this was what his invasion of Iraq was all about. > This, > despite the US being close allies of dictatorships in Saudi Arabia > for 50 > years and even with Saddam Hussein himself for 15 when encouraging > him to > wage years of warfare on Iran. No longer, it would seem, did Bush > invade > Iraq because of international terrorism, nor because of Weapons of > Mass > destruction. (The Special Task Force of 2,000 American troops which > have > apparently been searching for WMDs for months have not turned up > anything > yet. WMDs were never there in the first place, as the UN Inspectors > > believed, and as further recent evidence suggests -- see the article > below.) > > The US death toll reported in today's Independent article below > (142) has > already been augmented this morning by another four soldiers killed > in a > downed helicopter and possibly two more in other incidents on the > roads. > For electoral reasons a year from now, Bush may now already be > deciding to > leave well before next summer. One or two particularly dramatic > terrorist > attacks could cause the American electorate to swing ferociously > against > Bush at almost any time from now onwards. > > Of course, some believe, including the present writer, that Bush > invaded > Iraq in order to ensure that US and UK oil corporations would be > able to > develop the immense northern oilfields from which Saddam had > mischievously > excluded them. But, in the biggest mistake that Bush (or, probably, > Cheney) > made, these corporations refuse to be involved until there's a > legitimate > Iraqi government in place and not the American-imposed Coalition > Provisional Authority. > > Two or three more speeches along the lines that Bush has just made > would > allow him to segue right out of Iraq -- throwing it a constitution > and > holding an election along the way which will ensure a Shia majority. > If he > makes sure that the Shias have sufficient well-armed forces at their > > disposal, this ought to ensure that the previous oppressors, the > Sunnis, > will be subjugated (or chased into Syria) and, if and when Saddam > emerges > from hiding, he will be quickly caught and executed. > > This scenario may seem unlikely -- even absurd at the moment -- but > I don't > see any other way out of Bush's predicament and possible humiliating > defeat > next November. He's not gained what went to Iraq for -- WMDs or oil > -- so > he might as well leave now as craftily as he can. He's been able to > con > most of the American electorate so far, so he ought to be able to > swing > this new strategy across them as a piece of international > statesmanship in > the name of bringing democracy to one more country. > > Just one postscript for non-UK readers: there are likely to be large > > demonstrations against Bush when he arrives. The usual state > procession > down the Mall has already been cancelled and it's exceedingly > unlikely that > Bush will be able to show his face in public in the usual way. > > Keith Hudson > > <<<< > BUSH CALLS IRAQ MISSION 'WATERSHED FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY' > > Rupert Cornwell > > Washington -- Less than two weeks before what may be a stormy state > visit > to London, President George Bush yesterday cast himself as a new > Ronald > Reagan, vowing to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East and > beyond > -- just as Mr Reagan did with the Soviet Union, in his "evil empire" > > address to the British Parliament 21 years ago. > > Speaking on the day he signed into law the Bill authorising $87 > billion of > extra funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Bush set out his vision > of a > modernised and democratic Iraq serving as example throughout the > region. > > Separately, administration officials confirmed that they had > received a > behind-the-scenes proposal, supposedly from Saddam Hussein, offering > a deal > last March to stave off the looming war. But the contact was > rebuffed by > the CIA. > > Though experts said the move may have been of little significance, > critics > presented the episode as further proof that Mr Bush would let > nothing > interfere with his determination to go to war. > > In his speech yesterday Mr Bush once again made no reference to > mounting US > casualties in Iraq, including two more fatal attacks yesterday, > bringing to > 142 the death toll since he declared the end of major combat > operations. > Nor did he refer to the strains on the military, and yesterday's > Pentagon > announcement that 132,000 troops and reservists will be sent to > relieve > units who have been in the region for a year. Instead he stressed > that > failure in Iraq would embolden terrorists around the world, but "the > > establishment of a free Iraq will be a watershed event in the global > > democratic revolution." > > That, clearly, is the message he will deliver during his address to > an > audience of dignitaries in London on 19 November, the centrepiece of > his > state visit. And his references to the dismissive reaction to Mr > Reagan's > speech in Westminster Hall left no doubt that he is expecting more > of the > same for himself. "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and > also an > admirer of Ronald Reagan," Mr Bush yesterday quoted from a newspaper > > editorial of the time, recalling how some observers had pronounced > the > "evil empire" speech to be "simplistic and naive, and even > dangerous". In > fact the current unpopularity of Mr Bush and his administration -- > widely > perceived in Europe as high-handed, arrogant and ignorant -- > eclipses that > of Mr Reagan in 1982, at the height of the Cold War. But Mr Bush > stressed > he would not be deterred. > > Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack > of > freedom in the Middle East had done nothing to make the world safer, > the > President told the National Endowment for Democracy here. "It would > be > reckless to accept the status quo," he declared, defending his > doctrine of > preemptive action as "a forward strategy of freedom". He attacked > the > "outposts of oppression" in Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma, > but > praised Morocco and other Arab states such as Yemen, Bahrain and > Jordan, > who are gingerly taking steps towards democracy. He called on Egypt > and > Saudi Arabia to move faster along the path of reform, and delivered > > familiar tirades against leaders in Iran and Palestine who were > blocking > their peoples' aspirations to freedom. > > The Independent -- 7 November 2003 > >>>> > > > Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, > <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
