One Response to “Scott Adams: We Should Leave Iraq. Here’s Why.”

1. danielet Says:
   December 8th, 2006 at 5:20 pm

   There are two terribly paralyzing cans tied to the
   tail of US troops patrolling anywhere in Iraq: 1) oil
   and 2) Israel’s interests via the neocons. The first
   has been dealt with only by the Vice President under a
   cover of official secrecy. And the behavior of Mr.
   Bremer went a long way to suggest that Iraq’s oil
   might well have become the exclusive property ad
   perpetum, were it not for the UN’s intervention in
   making clear that such contracts were not allowed by
   the occupying power. The second is down right
   outrageous. The neocon mantra– if it’s good for
   Israel it HAS GOT TO BE GOOD for America– has tainted
   every single American move in the Mideast. It has made
   the US occupation a cover for Mossad fragmentation of
   Iraqi ethnic-religious groups. The irony of Bush
   turning Iraq over to Iran run Shia (SCIRI) state at
   the expense of Iraqi nationalists Shia (so recognized
   even by the Sunnis) under Sadr while the US seeks to
   impose loss of Shia Hezbollah domination of Lebanon,
   though it is the largest group in that country (Shia
   also a majority), has confounded the meaning of the
   American role in the Mideast.

   The Woodward book seems to miss one critical component
   of the Rumsfeld Saga. While Bush was the presidential
   candidate neocon seed-money financed in the early
   march trough the Republican primaries of 2000,
   Rumsfeld was their key man. He and his troll, Cheney,
   were advised to join the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld
   was told to take DoD and win a quick war in Iraq to
   make himself famous. Then, since they insisted Bush
   would not survive to a second term, he could be the
   Republican hero to step into the candidacy. At the
   same time, utterly incompetent but inbred
   neocon-juniors were put all through DoD to dilute
   Wolfowitz and assure that Rummy abides by the neocon
   program. The old Bolsheviks once more got their way as
   shadows influencing their man. The key to this
   operation’s Iraq occupation was Bremer. For he informs
   us the the pulverization of the Iraqi military and
   civil service was ordered, not by Rumsfeld, but by
   Feist. That way, Rumsfeld evades blame for
   short-circuiting the oblivious president and the
   neocons get the digested and helpless Iraq they
   wanted…an Iraq, ready for Chalabi to take-over;
   that’s what they wanted.

   Unfortunately for them, Bush was fully informed by the
   CIA that Chalabi is run by the Iranians. And so,
   Frankiln got that to them through AIPAC a bit too
   late. Chalabi was cut off and arrested trough a
   DoS-Iraqi Provisional Govt. maneuver that Bremer was
   not privy to; and so, DoD was stuck occupying Iraq
   without a plan, Rumsfeld having thrown the
   British-American occupation plan into the garbage
   before the invasion. Sec. of State Powell had insisted
   on DoD exclusive responsibility for Iraq so that Rummy
   alone would be blamed for the failure.

   Israel got the pulverized Ba’athist Party it wanted so
   that it would no longer be a threat to it– hoping
   that Syria would be the next– but, as Netanyahu had
   predicted, the giant American ally was now stuck in
   and sinking in Iraq, despite Israeli assistance and
   advice on how to occupy an Arab land. Not long after,
   the neocons– diagnosed already as abnormal by
   Sharon– desperately sought to extend the American
   invasion to Syria, then Iran, but to no avail.

   Bush DID survive to win a second term and he kept
   Rumsfeld in office so that Rummy can be made to take
   blame for Iraq from soup to nuts when the time to
   pull-out comes. Cheney was kept on the ticket, but
   after victory was isolated, while Rice– with a full
   green light form the President– revitalized DoS as
   the operative control of US foreign policy.

   Before the invasion by US forces, like all other
   Arabs, knowing he could not hold back the US, Saddam
   planned a Stalin-type resistance for after the
   Americans take Baghdad. Then, seeing themselves with
   no income while Halliburton, for its own security,
   flooded Iraq with Third Country nationals as
   employees, the hardest hit by the unemployment, the
   Sunnis, flocked to the Ba’athists Resistance. Bremer
   thought that Alawi was a secular alternative for
   Chalabi. But all in all, from the wild days of looting
   onward, Iraqis came to conclude by observing the
   Bremer-run occupation that the Americans in-country
   are both idiots and crooks. Last count, $9 billion
   worth of “reconstruction” aid is missing. Two strands
   developed amongst gun-abled men in Iraq: 1) hate of
   occupation and revenge seeking in return for violence
   and insult visited on their families by US troops; 2)
   criminality– this is the largest group– forming
   gangs or selling services (you can have anyone killed
   in Baghdad for $20) and other illicit activities who
   today are responsible for most of the killing of
   civilians as they carve out fiefs.

   There is now only one solution possible: FOR AMERICA
   TO ANNOUNCE A DATE SET BY WHICH IT WILL REMOVE ALL
   TROOPS. Incompetence is forgivable should it be clear
   that the occupation will come to an end. But America’s
   good-will is unbelievable when the issue is continued
   occupation. An thus, no Iraqi leader is believable
   when sustained by the occupiers. Any contact with
   Americans leads to discrediting of the involved Iraqi.
   Only the SCIRI officials can get away with it because
   they are known to be Iran stooges and are duly
   supported efficiently and lavishly.

   The key issue is that Americans are staying in Iraq
   for a reason– most assumed by Iraqis are reasons in
   support of US or Israeli interests. Currently, most
   violence is visited by Shia and Sunni gangsters on the
   professional class of both Shia and Sunni sides, on
   the assumption that these groups have money and can be
   extorted. Lest America sets a date soon, there will
   not be educated Iraqis left alive (over 100,000 have
   left Iraq) to provide services in the country. Setting
   a date will produce immediate “entre-Irakiens”
   negotiations for the formation of some sort of truce,
   as the French keep insisting. But without a clear sign
   that the occupation is coming to an end Iraq is
   doomed. The Bush meeting with Hakim, leader of SCIRI,
   was meant as a substitute for meeting with Iran. But
   it is to no avail until the US clearly shows that it
   is giving up its occupation in force of Iraq. US
   advisers dispersed, not the the Iraqi army, but to all
   Shia and Sunni village militias will, as in Vietnam,
   create the self-confidence needed to promote
   concessions and national unity. But Sadr must be shown
   that Iraqi nationalists are those favored by the US,
   not Iran lackeys. The US must make a truce with him so
   he can feel safe to reconcile with the Sunnis against
   the Iran run SCIRI before we withdraw.

   Daniel E. Teodoru

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.