Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

A 'Surge' to Save Bush's Legacy

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted January 3, 2007.


With 3,000 American soldiers already dead along with possibly a half million or more Iraqis, Bush is determined to escalate the war in the Middle East into a pitched battle for his presidential legacy.
Advertisement

If press reports are correct -- that George W. Bush will approve a troop “surge” in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000 soldiers -- the follow-up question must be whether the escalation will do anything but get more Americans and Iraqis killed while only forestalling the defeat of Bush’s war policy.

Even top advocates for the “surge,” such as retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and neoconservative activist Frederick W. Kagan, have argued that U.S. troop levels must be increased by at least 30,000 for 18 months or more to bring security to Baghdad, what they call a “precondition” for any successful outcome.

"Any other option is likely to fail," Keane and Kagan wrote in an op-ed article in the Washington Post on Dec. 27, 2006.

So, the more modest escalation of up to 20,000 soldiers would appear to represent what might be called "Operation: Save Bush’s Legacy," with the goal of postponing the inevitable until 2009 when American defeat can be palmed off on a new President.

Right now, Bush seems caught between his determination to stave off admission of failure and the shortage of U.S. troops available to throw into the conflict in Iraq. Just to reach a 20,000-troop increase, Bush would have to delay the scheduled departure of two Marine regiments now deployed in Anbar Province.

The escalation to 160,000 troops, from the current 140,000, also would be hard to maintain for long, since the Pentagon has warned that existing troop levels in Iraq already are straining the U.S. military and forcing repeated tours for soldiers and Marines.

Yet all the signs point to Bush going in that direction. Over the past few weeks, he even appears to be orchestrating a slow-motion purge of senior military leaders who oppose the "surge" and instead favor a phased withdrawal.

First, Bush fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Nov. 8, just two days after Rumsfeld sent Bush a memo suggesting a “major adjustment” in Iraq War policy that would include "an accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases" from 55 to five by July 2007 with remaining U.S. forces only committed to Iraqi areas that request them.

"Unless they [the local Iraqi governments] cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province," Rumsfeld wrote in his Nov. 6 memo.

Proposing an option similar to a plan enunciated by Democratic Rep. John Murtha, Rumsfeld suggested that the commanders "withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions -- cities, patrolling, etc. -- and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance."

And in what could be read as an implicit criticism of Bush’s lofty rhetoric about transforming Iraq and the Middle East, Rumsfeld said the administration should "recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) -- go minimalist."

Though many Americans viewed Rumsfeld as the personification of Bush’s "tough-guy" strategy in the Middle East, the Defense Secretary’s downfall may have been caused by his going wobbly on the war.

Mistaken judgment

Washington insiders also may have been wrong when they interpreted Bush’s selection of former CIA Director Robert Gates as a concession to the "realists" advocating a disengagement from Iraq. It may actually have been the opposite -- the replacement of a disillusioned Rumsfeld with a dutiful Gates.

The "conventional wisdom" was misguided, too, when it assumed that Bush would interpret the Democratic victory on Nov. 7 as a sign to begin winding down the Iraq War. Instead, Bush signaled his disdain for anyone suggesting a troop withdrawal.

In Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 30, Bush mocked the expected recommendations from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by longtime Bush Family adviser James Baker who considered a troop drawdown combined with a revived Israeli-Palestinian peace process and direct talks with Iran and Syria as the only realistic course.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, iraq, surge, escalation, legacy

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush Cuts and Runs from Reason By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Posted by: rwa on Jan 3, 2007 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On January 2 the BBC reported a leak from a "senior administration source" that President George W. Bush is going to give a speech, whose "central theme will be sacrifice," announcing an increase in US troops in Iraq for security purposes. Speculation abounds whether the leak is designed to block Bush's insane policy with protests or to soften its controversial edge when announced. The BBC reports that "already one senior Republican senator has called it Alice in Wonderland."

Bush's proposal, if he makes it, is the work of retired army general Jack Keane and Frederic W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. AEI is the second most important Israeli lobby in Washington after AIPAC.

Keane and Kagan profess to believe that 30,000 more US troops can bring security to Iraq. Keane and Kagan argue that more US troops would permit the US military to retain control of an area after they had cleared it of insurgents. They ignore that Iraq has progressed from insurgency into civil war. There can be no Iraqi army independent of the sectarian conflict. The military problem for the Americans is no longer a small insurgency drawn from a minority of the population, but sectarian strife involving all of Iraq. Today the only choice for US forces is to ally with one side or the other in the civil war or to depart Iraq.

Knowledgeable people regard the Keane/Kagan plan as a proposal designed to continue for a while longer the blood profits of the US military-industrial complex and to advance Israel's interests by spreading Sunni-Shi'ite conflict throughout the Middle East.

The neoconservatives' original plan was to give Israel hegemony in the Middle East by using the US military to overthrow Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The failure of US forces to subdue Iraq has led to a new neoconservative plan to give Israel supremacy by spreading sectarian conflict among Muslims throughout the region. No Arab state would be stable, and Israel could proceed with its seizure of Palestine.

If Bush adopts the Keane/Kagan "plan," he should be impeached for putting two special interests--the military-industrial complex and Israeli Zionist settlers--ahead of America's interests and the interests of peace in the Middle East. The crimes of the Bush regime already stand at a horrendous level. There is no support for the Keane/Kagan "plan" in the American political establishment, among Middle East experts and the American public, or within the Bush administration itself.

The American electorate, or stolen elections, have put in the presidency an ignorant and moronic person who is guided not by sense and reason but by an enormous ego that can admit no mistake. In the name of a concocted "war on terror," the American public has permitted Bush an endless stream of mistakes. These mistakes are destroying any prospect for peace in the Middle East, committing America to endless and pointless conflict, destroying America's soft power while demonstrating the limits of its military power, creating a domestic police state, and endangering the US dollar. There is no imaginable gain from the Middle Eastern conflict that Bush has initiated that could possibly offset these costs to Americans.

The US electorate attempted to rein in Bush in the November election by giving Democrats control of Congress. But Bush refuses to listen to the electorate as he prepares, instead, to mire America deeper in illegitimate conflict that does not serve America's interests.

President George W. Bush is destroying America. Will Congress stop him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Peak oil is a hoax Posted by: rwa
Impeach the SOB
Posted by: deeannef on Jan 3, 2007 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my 47 years of life, I have never seen a "president" so egotistical and arrogant as this idiot. He hand picks information until he hears what he wants and fires those who would dare to disagree with his "all knowing" opinion. I think it is time for congress to impeach this a-hole before he gets us into a nuclear war with some country he does not like. But I guess I better be careful in what I say before he starts imprisoning those who disagree and get sent to room 105 (I think that is the correct room number).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Room 101 Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: room 101 Posted by: deeannef
Anthropomorphism
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 3, 2007 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(ascribing human characteristics to non-human things) is essentially what this article is. The good natured author assumes that the subject must be another good natured person who cares about his legacy. But what if that is not the case? And given the fact that escalation will almost certainly not retrieve his legacy, but only bring more bloodshed and profiteering, why would we assume that is his reason to support escalation?

How about another hypothesis, one that is supported by facts:
- Bush could care less about his legacy, popularity, the US economy or world standing, troops, civilians or any of that.
- He wants to milk as much money out of the deal for his war profiteer buddies (who will pay him back when he finishes) while it's still going.
- The war is doing just fine for Exxon profits, and he'll be getting a fistful of that when it's done, too.

So the author's hypothesis is based on a mushy concept that a legacy could be improved by escalation, while the facts indicate it would just be another disaster for both nations involved. My hypothesis is backed by cold cash. Which do you buy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anthropomorphism Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Anthropomorphism Posted by: paschn
False Assumptions
Posted by: Dboy on Jan 3, 2007 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
False Assumptions about Bush/Iraq/9-11, etc:

1) Bush cares about his legacy
2) Bush is an idiot
3) The US plans on leaving Iraq at some point
4) Israel is an ally of the US
5) Evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 actually exists
6) Evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 actually exists
7) Bush cares deeply about US casualities
8) Bush is being manipulated by Darth Cheney
9) US is just trying to defend itself from islamofascism
10) mainstream media worships at the alter of Truth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A few issues.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: A few issues.... Posted by: Dboy
» RE: False Assumptions Posted by: surfreality
» RE: False Assumptions Posted by: Dboy
Bush is going down in flames and nothing can save him!
Posted by: philobat on Jan 3, 2007 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people are stupid and/or lazy, more often than not naive and/or ignorant- because they were educated to think a certain way for predictable responses. Now there are exceptions to the rule because the smart ones, like you and me see through this sham.

With the advent of the internet, these well-meaning over educated boobs are beginining to see the light and get new information and various opinions, and have come or are coming to realize that much of what they believed is WRONG. This is why the government is attempting to control the internet.

The skeletons are falling out of the closets and they cant have that! They long for the days when we believed everything we were told by the newspapers and television reporters!

People are starting to wake up- FINALLY. Many of my aqqaintances are now against Bush, when they were staunch supporters for years. In fact, I do not know anyone who does not believe that Bush and his Father are the worst presidents in American history.

So Bush can and probably will continue to kill as many people as he wants that gets in his Emperical way- It will just insure his legacy as a drunken murderer and the rest of us Americans as his accomplices.

And by the way, did I mention that Tony Blair is an idiot automaton?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bushes Alcoholism Recovery Program as US Foreign Policy
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 3, 2007 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The scarriest part of all this is that it may not just be about maximizing war profits for buddies or advancing Israeli interests, although those ends could very well be served. Now, why did Bush invade Iraq to begin with? It started with his well documented manipulation of intelligence data to justify an American (with some UK help) invasion. At the 911 National Security Briefings, insiders report Bush was franatic that "we have to tie Iraq into this." Then, after the CIA balked on Osama/WMD ties, he set-up (with Rummy) a basement Pentagon (Office of Special Plans) operation to prove his point. We do know that Bush II was very angry Saddam reportedly plotted to assasinate his father. But, beyond this, and looking at the Israeli connection, is Bushes tie in with the Evangelicals and having "been saved." This "being saved" did help Bush II no doubt overcome alcoholism, but it is a disaster as a foreign policy. I would speculate Bush sees the Israeli's as the "choosen people" whose alliance with the USA will bring about the "Armagedon" and then the "The Rapture" where Jesus returns to a decimated Earth to bring home "the Righteous." In America, at least several million people believe this, as crazy as it all sounds. So, do not expect Bush to do anything except the zaniest possible scenarios when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East. Adding 30K soldiers can do nothing except bring about more US casuaties of course, and if an Iran attack is in store, a much bigger disaster is coming. All of it antithetical to American interests but that may not matter for Bush, who seems to probably believe he has a higher, divine calling. Now, if Bush were in it only for the war profits or something it would be so much easier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Got damn, what a moron...
Posted by: doctorsquared on Jan 3, 2007 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as if two divisions (no, wait, that's not even two divisions!) more are going to turn the tide of this monumental CF. When. Will. This. End?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do Something
Posted by: wawa on Jan 4, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We the People for Peace and Justice are marching in DC January 27 and going to Congress January 29 to demand they DO SOMETHING to END THE WAR

http://unitedforpeace.org/


"If you are not a part of the solution: you are a part of the problem."-Eldridge Cleaver


Do Something,
e
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush as Lincoln
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 4, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has a high opinion of himself. He remembers how Abraham Lincoln kept firing his generals until he found Ulysses S. Grant. Grant didn't mind sacrificing his armies as long as he could grind down those of his adversaries. What better way to end his presidency than by taking on true Lincolnesque proportions and silencing his critics. The trouble with Bush's plan is that there is no general out there who can effectively employ an extra 20,000 troops to subdue 25 million Iraqis who don't buy into the Keane and Kagan neocon idiocy. Bush as Lincoln is a bad replaying of history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War Criminals
Posted by: packofwolves on Jan 4, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and cronies are war criminals and should be arrested and tried as same. In the meantime, we can send his precious twins into Iraq, and I think there are a few other Bush kids who aren't doing much except drinking and getting arrested for disorderly conduct. I think it's time for our politicians to make their own human sacrifice since they seem so willing to sacrifice our children. That will end the war quickly.
On another note:
If I were a country in the Middle East, I'd be building bombs too to protect my people from the world's worst terrorist, and if you don't know who that is, you'd better take a closer look. Bush can't do anything we don't allow him to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: War Criminals Posted by: symcokid
There should never be a war without shared sacrifice
Posted by: Beck on Jan 4, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This surge is a chance for all those who approve of Bush's policies but for some reason have lingered safely here to step up to the bat and do their part. No war without shared sacrifice! This country is now so disconnected from its fears and conscience that too many people seemed convinced on the one hand that great danger exists, but that on the other hand, they themselves have no obligation whatsoever to pitch in, and so disconnected from its conscience that plenty of people are willing to let others die for their cherished causes while enjoying life and liberty here. We aren't even willing to pay for our own wars now. We'll borrow the money from countries we pretty much seem to despise, and let our kids and grandkids pay it back, if they can. It seems like as long as a person feels they have the proper attitude and spirit towards the dead and maimed, they are patriotic and have done their duty. Troops lacking proper equipment and good care when they return is a shame, apparently, but nothing to stop enjoying life over, even for the couple of minutes it would take to email Bush. Americans often get things exactly backwards and believe in the wrong things; that it hurts the troops to criticize the president, but it's okay to stay here yourself while you're arguing for them to stay there, that symbolic support is meaningful when probably not one American in a thousand writes or phones elected officials to complain about terribly low pay for enlisted personnel or the neglect they'll probably be in for if they return home maimed or mentally ravaged. We seem to like to believe what's convenient and what allows us to continue believing all our other cherished notions, myths, and outright lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wrong! Posted by: jjs
» RE: Wrong! Posted by: Beck
Absorb this;
Posted by: paschn on Jan 4, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Fact is the wealthy and powerful own our "leaders". Throught history we've seen it happen over and over again. And we know, ( or SHOULD know ), it is ALWAYS to the detriment of the common folk.
Laughably, there are always enough "lackey" types there to enforce the legislated will of those who have bought and paid for our "leaders".
They keep us at each others throats based on race, income, IQ and whatever else they can spoon feed us through their media.
The same party that 100 years ago worked us to death, paid us in "scrip", called on their close "friends " in government to have their "lackeys" burn, beat, imprison us into submission now have a huge base of supporters that are blind to those swine and their heritage.
We need to focus on the basics of our oppression and remove it. In it's place install CONCRETE laws that CANNOT be revoked by doughy corporate whores the likes of Reagan, Bush, McCain et al.
We allow ourselves to be manipulated into killing each other while our powerful handlers hop about the world currying favor in the next country of idiots they want to dominate.
We definately don't deserve it, but we sure as hell, (over and over again throught out history ), ask for it.
If only there were a way to remove these type from the gene pool.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Legacy
Posted by: Maryanne on Jan 4, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trying to be open minded, i have seriously thought about what could be placed in Mr. Bush's presidential library and what his legacy woud be. We must assume that by legacy we mean something positive.

Regrettably, there is nothing to put into the presidential library because of the extremel secrecy of this administration. It is doubtful that he would allow access after he leaves office to anything pertaining to his administration. So no need for a library.

Secondly, regarding legacy, regrettably there is only one thing that I can think of that has been positive- the creation of a national park after watching a Cousteau documentary. However, even this is pointless since the national parks that belong to all of us have not only been shamefully neglected during this administration but have also been turned over to private interests and evangelical groups. We must all know that the Grand Canyon was the result of Noah's flood...(hmmmm)

Too late for legacy. This is a legacy of shame and abomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War and chaos feed Bush's greed, sadism and dictatorial pretensions.
Posted by: aztec on Jan 4, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush doesn't care about his legacy. He's a greedy sadistic psychopath. The more war, the more money Bush and his family make along with the other war-profiteers.

Iraq is going exactly the way Bush wants it to. He's implementing the Israeli solution for subjugating a conquered population: destroy the civilian infrastructure and economy, impoverishment, high unemployment, starving the population of food and medical aid, ethnic cleansing, capricious murders and harassment of civilians, stealing resources and most importantly fomenting sectarian, ethnic, racial and confessional conflict among the conquered population. Rule through chaos.

Bush wants to extend the chaos throughout the Middle East. Bush green-lighted the long-term Israeli plan for the destruction of Lebanon last spring to try to bomb other Lebanese into fighting the Hezbollah. Recently, Bush backed the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to put back in power the warlords that kicked the Americans out of Somalia in the early 1990's. The problem was a group of religious Muslims brought security and peace to Somalia by defeating the very same warlords that forced the US out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Surge my ass
Posted by: willymack on Jan 4, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have a deranged halfwit in the White House, allowed to run amock and make his demented "decisions" affecting the lives of those far more intelligent and morally upright than him. Steven King couldn't write a more macabre screenplay than this, but maybe he should. There must be some way to get through to the knuckleheads in Congress and our body politic and get them to take action against this dangerous nut before something even more horrifying unfolds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Surge" is really a covert deployment for the nuking of Iran
Posted by: xbj on Jan 4, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This so-called "surge" of troops is merely a covert attempt to get as many troops as possible into the Mideast for the imminent nuking of Iran, in order to TRY to keep Iraq's Shia in check while Iran is nuked to black glass. (As if ANYTHING or ANYONE could do that after nuking Iran.)

Nothing more. There, now the secrets' out.

Anymore you want to know?

Message to the troops... when Amerika goes (and it will, completely, fatally, within 24 hours of the nuking of Iran) get your sorry asses to Israel just as fast as you are able.

Message to Amerika: Good bye... it was fun while it lasted, wasn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush legacy?
Posted by: symcokid on Jan 4, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only possible legacy that Bush will leave behind is one of insanity!!! The longer he remains in power, the deeper the quagmire we find ourselves in. I wonder when he will high tail it to his 98,000 acre farm in Paraquay - I imagine after he has everything totally screwed up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CAN'T CONGRESS RESCIND THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE?
Posted by: xbj on Jan 7, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any constitutional law experts out there? Can't Congress rescind the authorization to use force? Get a team of lawyers to determine that CONGRESS WAS LIED TO in the first place and that THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZATION WAS OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

Therby making it NULL AND VOID. LEGALLY.

This would effectively KILL not only THE SURGE, but ALSO KILL ANY NUKING OF IRAN WITHOUT CONGRESS GIVING FUTURE APPROVAL.

IF THIS CAN BE DONE, IT MUST BE DONE A.S.A.P.

Bush could NO LONGER sneak attack Iran (in a phony retaliation against a flase flag attack against American or Canadian interests carried out by Israel) IF THIS IS CARRIED OUT.

Not only that, it would stop the surge DEAD IN ITS TRACKS WITHOUT withdrawing funding or support for current troops.

It could also be seen as a first step toward impeachment and forcing the White House War Pigs to BRING HOME THE TROOPS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]