Is al-Maliki Part of an October Surprise Whisper Campaign?

One has to wonder if Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and his aides, are staging a propaganda campaign in coordination with Bush and the Republican Party. Calls for troop withdrawals sound fishy to me.

Think of it. Al-Maliki and his aides leak the following message, "We want ALL US troops out by 2011." The Bush administration pretends to be somewhat dismayed. But what is the effect?

If the voting public is led to believe that ALL US troops will be out of Iraq by 2011, regardless of who is elected president, then the Iraq War is no longer a presidential campaign issue. Who benefits? McCain.

Of course, come 2011, with McCain as president, or even Obama, "facts on the ground" change and US troops remain in Iraq. Hello. Am I being too cynical?

Don't put it past Cheney and Rove to engineer this al-Maliki whisper campaign as part of an October Surprise.
Sources:

Surprise Surprise: Troop Drawdown Delay

Surprise surprise, the troop surge has worked so well that we need to delay the troop draw down. This isn't a quagmire, it's an occupation.

Now that we know either Clinton, Obabma or McCain will be the next president, we know the US troops will be in Iraq, at some level, for at least nine more years, unless they are pushed out.

My estimate of the length of the occupation is still on track, but I'm not sure I haven't under estimated it.

In my original estimate I used a comparison of Iraq and Vietnam as the basis for estimating six more years from January 2007. Here's another possible basis for an estimate of how long we'll be in Iraq.... Bosnia:

TUZLA, Bosnia, Nov. 24, 2004 -- U.S. troops marked the end of their nine-year peacekeeping role in Bosnia on Wednesday as NATO prepared to hand over the task to the European Union in December.

Ooops! Forgot something:

A small number of U.S. troops will stay in Bosnia to hunt war crime suspects and help the country reform its military.

Sound familiar? Obama and Clinton always say have a similar disclaimer, like those words read really quickly at the end of a damn advertisement:

Thecandidatedoesnotrepresentthisstatementasfact and reservestherighttomaintaintrooplevelstomeetunforseenneeds astheyarise
including butnotlimitedto securityforcontractorsandembassyemployees
trainingiraqiforces interdictingterrorists

So, General Petraeus wants a little time for "consolidation and evaluation," and Defense Secretary Gates "had been kind of headed in that direction as well."

Fear and Worry are all Part of a Crumbling Empire:

Some fear the drawdown could result in giving up some recent security gains while many in the military worry that strains on troops from long and multiple combat tours will grow worse unless the troop reduction continues after July.

If people like Barak Obama have their way, who call for increasing the size of the US Military by 90,000, the latter worry should subside... for a while.

Crumble, crumble.

Sources:

CBC, U.S. may delay troop cuts in Iraq: defence secretary, February 11, 2008.

Bush's New "New Way"

Talk about slow bleed. Watching Bush wallow in Iraq is painful; I can only imagine how much more painful it is for those with loved ones directly involved, or preparing to ship out.

I'm prompted by the recent unofficial announcement that 15,000 troops might be held over for an extra 120 days. If they stay, some will die, some will be maimed, some will be traumatized, some will miss milestone family events. And for what?

The unapproved statement (authorized spin or unauthorized leak?) says:

[General] Petraeus believes the troop increase President Bush announced in January has produced some momentum in fighting violence in Iraq, Petraeus wants to maintain troops at that level past the summer.

Bait-and-switch aside, Why? What's the plan? Well, actually, the plan keeps changing. Below are three morphed strategies.

Bush's generals tell us there isn't a military solution to the mission (what ever that has morphed into). So, I Googled Bush Plan Iraq.

At the top of the list is a May 2004 speech: "President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom". In that plan, Bush outlines "five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom":

We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

Not to mention annihilating Fallujah in a war crime differing from Saddam Hussein's Dujail massacre only in that more people were killed when Bush punished Fallujah. Hussein was hung for Dujail.

Next on the Google list is a November 2005 speech: "President Outlines Strategy for Victory in Iraq." The strategy is outlined having three elements.

On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies, so we're helping the Iraqis build a free society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis. We're working with the Iraqis to help them engage those who can be persuaded to join the new Iraq -- and to marginalize those who never will.

On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.

And on the economic side, we're helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy, and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq. In doing all this we have involved the United Nations, other international organizations, our coalition partners, and supportive regional states in helping Iraqis build their future.

A critique: First, freedom doesn't guarantee peace. Second, the security forces failed to hold territory, and alienated the the Iraqi public creating more insurgents according to the CIA. Finally, the US tried to impose corporate globalization onto the Iraqi economy, resulting in exploitation and an economic collapse. The UN and others have mostly stood on the sidelines due to growing insecurity and the US attitude of "Its my way or the highway.

The next on Google's list is a Washington Post article voicing scepticism about Bush's next new strategy dubbed "The New Way Forward In Iraq." Like his falsely advertised Prescription Drug Program, Bush low balled the number of troops that would be needed for a surge.

What does the new "New Way" strategy include?

Establishing More Than 45 "Joint Security Stations" Throughout Baghdad.

Stepping Up Training The Iraqi Army And Police

Enhancing Our Civilian And Diplomatic Efforts

And of course,

Ordering Reinforcements Of More Than 20,000 Combat Forces To Iraq

Emphasis on the "more than."

The originally advertised 21,500 doesn't count 2,000 military police needed to manage about 20,000 additional detainees. It doesn't count troops that have quietly been added to bring the surge number closer to 30,000. Now we read that 15,000 troops will be held over for an additional 120 days, or that Bush has authorized extending combat tours to 15-months (three more months of Iraqi roulette).

The blogosphere was reporting, about a month ago, that there aren't enough combat forces to meet the 21,500 troop call-up; the only way to meet those numbers would be to extend the tours. The blogosphere can claim another correct prediction.

Here's a link to my optimistic prediction on how the Iraq war will play out. My other prediction is that the "New Way" out of Iraq will be through Iran:

Bush can't continue occupying Iraq, because it incites unacceptable violent resistance. Bush can't leave, because his failed mission would increase Iran's power in the region with great influence over a Shia-dominated Iraq. So, where does this leave him? It leaves him with the option of attacking Iran to weaken that nation before leaving Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democrats face the same reality.

I'm not alone in this later prediction.
~

We're Heading for Surge and Iran Unless the Public Speaks Out

Last night as I watched the president's address, I took a couple notes.

Seek out networks in Iran and Syria

Limited diplomacy surge with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, omitting Iran and Syria.

Glen Greenwald was struck by the same point. He urges everyone to pay close attention to Bush's intentions toward Iran in the days and months ahead. Aside from Bush's argument of "disrupting networks" and pre-empting potential Iranian nuclear ambitions, there is pressure to attack Iran.

In short, Busch can't continue occupying Iraq, because it incites unacceptable violent resistance. Bush can't leave, because his failed mission would increase Iran's power in the region with great influence over a Shia-dominated Iraq. So, where does this leave him? It leaves him with the option of attacking Iran to weaken that nation before leaving Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democrats face the same reality.

Another point struck me:

Bush committed 4,000 more troops to Anbar Province.

My count was 20,000 in Baghdad and 4,000, but today's papers cited 21,500. I had expected Bush to focus solely on Baghdad, but he at least has the "sense" to recognize the troubles extend beyond Baghdad.

Another point struck me:

Capital investment funding for jobs

Bush been one step behind at every turn of this war. He commits more troops, when it's too late. He adopts a socialist job-creation policy, when it's too late. It's too late for reconstruction projects because it has become too dangerous to do the work. How long will it be until we hear "A bomb blast ripped through a line of people applying for jobs....." "The Iraqis were killed by small arms fire while working on a....." "A mini bus with eight Iraqi reconstruction workers was riddled with gun fire...." as if this isn't already happening.

Another political reality is that the Democrats have nothing to gain from withdrawing support for a troop surge. If Democrats withdraw funds and authority for troops, they can be blamed for what ever happens there after. Thus, it's in their political interest to let Bush have enough surge-rope with which to hang himself.

Given these "realities," the US is almost certain to surge the troops, and attack Iran, beyond the covert military operations already underway in Iran.

The only way to avoid this is for the US public to demonstrate a historically high amplitude of opposition to these two acts. The first step is for everyone concerned to immediately write and call their elected officials. I've done it, and it feels good to talk to a human. Ask them if they're receiving similar calls. If so, ask from which side of the issue they're receiving more calls.

Congressional Contacts:

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate

Then, voice the same opinion to local and national media outlets.

Media Contacts:

Write the Major Media Outlets
.