GOP Ruse on Iraq by Default?

So we hear that GOP leaders and Bush loyalists are concluding that the Baker / Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommendations are the best way to go. That is, take the establishment route. Duh.

Sorry, but "duh" is what comes to mind. The fact that it is supposedly bipartiasn doesn't mean it isn't imperialist, colonial.

Bush is out at the radical edge of the spectrum, making the establishment position seem middle-of-the-roas; the "bipartisan" plan actually constitutes a diplomatic imperial incursion designed to control Iraq. It's just a smarter way of doing it, that is below the radar of the American public. In other words, its a ruse that looks appealing in contrast to the wacko dominionist position of Bush.

Sources:

Associated Press, June 5, 2007, GOP: Bush should adopt bipartisan plan.

Is the Chaos in Iraq Intentional? Connecting the Dots

A friend writes:

During the last few years it's become increasingly clear that the Iraq war is going pretty much the way a lot of neocons want it to go - as sort of a second-best solution. The first-best neocon situation would be an Iraq controlled by a multi-national-corporation-based "democracy" (basically an arm of the U.S. military-industrial complex). Under this scenario, Iraq would be a base from which to spread instability and chaos to the rest of the Middle East (except to Israel and some of the Bush family's Arab friends), basically a catalyst to gain control of the entire Middle-East and its oil. Since this neocon dream hasn't happened (now virtually impossible - part of the "being greeted as liberators" fantasy), the second best situation is to have an unstable, chaotic Iraq that is a catalyst of instability and chaos in neighboring countries. This clearly IS happening.

So, I would argue that the current situation in Iraq, which is bad news to most Americans, is actually good news to neocons (its the start of the "permanent war"). The seeming failure of the Bush approach in Iraq is actually, in their minds, largely a success. Cheney and Rumsfield, if nothing else, are smart, savvy guys when it comes to military operations. Strategically, how could they have done just enough to fail time and again? How could they have ****ed up so badly? Well, they haven't - at least not according to them. This has all been by design. I'm not the first to posit this theory.

He then discusses connecting the dots.

The short term for a multi-national-corporation-based "democracy" is imperial democracy. Some neocons openly use the term. Arundhati Roy, author of The God of Small Things, has made the quip, "Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy, Buy One Get One Free." Another term is "Superpower democracy." Empire, creeping fascim have also been used.

I have blogged on this general topic before, prompted by a question posed by the Iraqi blogger Riverbend. The post is entitled, Riverbend ponders: Is the Iraq Debacle Intended?

More recently, former national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, made a similar argument. Maybe I put words in his mouth, but he comes pretty close to saying, "Bush is Steering US Toward War with Islam."

I'm also working on a piece about US supported death squads in Iraq. Examining that avenue is likely to help connect the dots on the question of whether the US leaders are intentionally fostering chaos, a permenant war.

Finally, I also started an essay about memoranda written by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo. If you want to get creeped out, read this. It's very clear to Yoo that a 'war time president' has greatly expanded powers as Commander in Chief. There is the motive. Now we need to connect the dots to the means and the opportunity for these crime against peace.