Escalation Masquerade

[bigtree]

Back and forth, the ascended,
Leaders hurl their followers,
Into the bloody abyss upended,
Neither of them can be bothered,

Save the ones who do the dying,
There's nothing left for the tyrants,
But to gather up more kindling,
To appease the smoldering silence -- rf


One more increase of troops in Iraq and Bush should be pulled down and impeached for every one of the lies he's used to justify the occupation. For months, Bush has allowed his surrogates in the administration, and in the Pentagon, to float the notion that a substantial withdrawal of troops from Iraq is coming in the next year.

On Dec. 8, 2005, Defense Sec. Rumsfeld told reporters after closed-door meetings with republicans that he expected there could be a reduction of some 20,000 U.S. troops after the Iraqi elections being held that week. "If conditions permit, we could go below that," he said.

Yet, the 20,000 troop reduction Rumsfeld was referring to were part of a bolstered force of 166,000 which had been reinforced to coincide with the Iraqi elections. His plan to reduce the U,S. presence to below 138,000 was nothing more than a lightening of the feathered forces, fed without nuance to a public eager for an end to the politically unpopular occupation.

In early May, 2006, the Pentagon sent their first signal since the after the elections that they wanted to reduce the forces. At least it was interpreted that way. Over 3,500 U.S. active duty soldiers who were set to deploy to Iraq were delayed indefinitely. That set off speculation that a drawdown was imminent.

That drawdown never materialized. Instead, later that month, the U.S. force in Iraq was increased by 2,000 troops from Kuwait, and several weeks later was increased by 3,500 soldiers who were stationed in Germany. So, the DoD accounting of 133,000 troops stationed in Iraq shot up to nearly 140,00 in a month.

There are no true benchmarks which would give any indication how much progress the Bush regime is making toward a U.S. exit from Iraq. Indeed, all of the signs point to a confusion of motivations from within the administration that favors the idea that our forces need to remain to defend the new authority in Iraq as it exerts its contrived power against the militarized elements which oppose it.

Yesterday, talking head and fervent supporter of invading Iraq before 9-11, Gen. Barry McCaffery was put on the MTP deck (replacing Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Iraq, who was likely huddled with Bush in Camp David discussing war games) to float the possibility of a U.S. force in Iraq of 50,000 troops remaining for up to 10 years to prop up the Iraqi government against the expected waves of opposition.

McCaffery, who began his propaganda by suggesting that the week's suicides at Gitmo were the equivalent of suicide bombings in Baghdad, bartered for ten more years to settle a conflict in Iraq that was initially billed by the administration as a cake-walk, with flowers.

Reflexively, the retired general straightened his political hat to declare his own prescription unrealistic. "I don’t think we’ve got that much time." he said. So it seems to me, in the next couple years prior to Mr. Bush leaving office, it has to appear to the American people this thing is working. And therein lies the risk. Because—so we’ve got to hurriedly transfer security arrangements to a force that’s ill-equipped, the Iraqi security forces, and is yet probably inadequate to stand on their own." he reasoned.

In order to believe the need for our continued military presence in Iraq, one must put aside the rhetoric the Bush regime made in the 2004 presidential campaign about the Iraqi elections being so critical to our force levels. 'Wait for this election', we were told, 'wait for this appointment', we were told further. 'Wait for these next appointments' we were assured, and the violence will subside.

Rice and Bolton at the State Dept. frowned and cajoled the new Iraqi authority to get on with their Iraq-democracy. "Stand up and do your job." Bush told the Iraqis.

We're waiting for them to "stand up so we can stand down" we were told. Well, the DOD site claims that there are more than 254,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces. In fact, the Pentagon continually contradicts any notion of a struggling Iraqi force with weekly claims of Iraqi forces 'assuming control' and our forces relinquishing it. We've all seen the reports proudly touting the successes of the junta's fresh fighters.

It seems out of place to be introducing more forces in a supposedly secure environment. The reports of increased violence certainly painted a different picture than the Bush regime wanted to portray as they sought to convince the American public as they voted that the end of the conflict was near. Bombings and raids against 'insurgents' were billed as 'joint exercises' with the Iraqis. Later, it was asserted that the U.S. forces were mostly in a supporting role, with Iraqi forces assuming more and more of the muckraking.

Truth is, our forces haven't 'stood down' in Iraq since the invasion. It's that vulnerable junta of ours that keeps us occupying. Aside from a bevy of ambitious men, a roomful of documents that would likely fit on a CD, palaces refurbished into offices, an Interior Ministry building, and a fortified Oil Ministry, there's little of the new Iraqi Imperium that represents a nation.

It's absurd to assert that our soldiers are protecting land. So much of Iraq is already being bargained away and partitioned by the Iraqis themselves. If there ever is any new wealth to come from the embattled oil wells, it too will be dispersed beyond the ability of our forces to control it or its influence.

It make little sense to assert that our 133,000 strong force is defending the cabinet, its officers, and agents. How do bombings and search and destroy missions 100s of miles away from the seat of government keep these secure? Iraqi resentment of the tactics of our forces is swelling, and, so goes the resistance.


This week the justification for our occupation imperceptibly shifted from defense of democracy (elections), to the open preservation of the U.S. stake and interest in the Iraqi government.

The new edict was hidden in an Orwellian announcement which, on its face, looked like a halt in the recent escalation of troops to Iraq, but was, in reality, a sly forecast of the desire for the introduction of more.

"I constantly evaluate the situation," Gen. George Casey said in a Fox interview. "And if I think I need more, I'll ask more. If I think I need less, I'll tell the president that I need less."

More troops is apparently what the Bush regime is leaning to. "Right now we're not planning on it," he qualified, "but it's possible."

Bush's equation for troops in Iraq goes like this: More violence = need for more troops. With that prescription, we should leave Iraq by . . . never. Iraq's forces will always be challenged by militarized resistance, even more so, aligned with our aggravating forces. Bush will never get enough soldiers to Iraq which would effect the type of crushing oppression needed to cow a country its size. The best he/we can hope for as he lopes our soldiers along, is an artificial prop of a lofty junta.

How far removed these 'elected' and appointed must seem to the populace from their needs and concerns. The first and most pressing initiative the new prime minister could come up with this week was, of course, more military muckraking in the provinces. That should inspire a type of allegiance to the new regime that would make Saddam proud.

How sanguine our nation's soldiers must feel about their own muckraking mission now that they've finally managed to find an actual insurgent they could show off Usay/Uday style to assuage any American guilt over the innocent men, women, and children who were the 'collateral and deliberate casualties of their contrived aggression.

Zarqawi's killing enables our soldiers their own rationalizations for their actions that have been allowed for generations for those whose job it is to kill in defense of our nation. But, to accept that association, they must also bear the complicity of their compatriots' misdeeds. If they are responsible for some glories that they perceive from this war, then they are responsible for the tragedies as well.

As for the leaders who flail our soldiers against the Iraqis, there is only blame as their cultivation of the war causes their influence and power to grow with every increase in aggression, and to wane as the conflict lessens.

There's nothing left for the tyrants as they gather in the comfort of the presidential retreat this week to line our soldiers up like matchsticks for a future flame, except to juggle their ambitions for a permanent occupation of Iraq with their delusions of some victory materializing out of their bloody misadventure. They can't have both. Either Iraq is a persistent failure, or it's a victory they should be able to confidently walk away from.

In the meantime, I expect they'll just decide to bull through in an attempt to conquer the Iraqi resistance in the buoyant wake of the killing of their prize; gathering up more kindling for their flame to appease the smoldering silence.

[bigtree]

1. 4th paragraph correction and link to final

Escalation Masquerade

by Ron Fullwood

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060613_escalation_masquerad.htm

In early May, 2006, the Pentagon sent their first signal since the after the Iraqi elections that they wanted to reduce the forces. At least it was interpreted that way. Over 3,500 U.S. active duty soldiers stationed in Germany who were set to deploy to Iraq were reportedly held back. We’ll see, but, the Army brigade from Fort Lewis, Washington, has already shipped equipment, including Stryker armored vehicles, to Iraq, ahead of the scheduled departure.

Despite the hold on the deployment, an actual drawdown has never materialized. Sine March, the U.S. troop presence in Iraq has been increased by 2,000 troops from Kuwait. So, the U.S. force is hovering at about 133,000-135,000 troops.