Our man Bush is making the rounds of his usual haunts in Washington, gathering information and opinions on the findings of the Iraq Study Group from such diverse players as Vice President Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, and a bunch of generals. Judging by the various trial balloons they’ve released in their usual subtle fashion, I’m going to go way out 
on a limb here and predict that Dubya’s dramatic conclusion will be — wait for it! — send more troops. Yes, the “surge” strategy so beloved of John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Just what the voters so clearly demanded, eh? This makes sense, I’m sure, in Bush’s tiny mind for several reasons. 1.) He’s the decider. Nobody’s going to tell him (and Cheney) what to do in Iraq, especially not a bunch of aging minders (sent by poppa Bush) whose opinions differ from the original pair of aging minders Dubya brought with him to Washington nearly six long years ago. 2.) Sending more troops makes the Democrats look bad, since they were sent to Washington to do just the opposite, and I’m sure Bush assumes they don’t have the spine to force him into withdrawal. 3.) It’s like “stay the course”… only better, so he gets to cling to his thread of consistency while looking like he’s doing something new and being “tough”, all at the same time — a win / win / win.
Where does this leave the rest of us? Well, unless we kick up a fuss (i.e. call, write, e-mail, and lobby the White House and Congress) we’ll be up shit creek, though not half so much as those poor bastards who have to stay and fight a hopeless war of uncertain outcome and shifting objectives, none of which are worth the loss of a single life or limb. I wouldn’t want anyone to think that ending a war is as simple as casting a vote for someone who says s/he will work in that direction. Recall that in 1964, Lyndon Johnson was cast as the “peace” candidate (like Wilson in 1916). Though we are not the same nation today as we were back in the early 60s, it is best to recall that it took near insurrection at home and mutiny overseas to turn that bloody ship around, and even then the end came in a hysterical flurry of military force that left an entire region devastated and many, many thousands dead. I don’t think ending the war in Iraq would require massive civil disobedience, but the sucker certainly isn’t going to end itself.
One thing that is clearly indicated by the Iraq Study Group plan and the “Extension and Acceleration” (i.e. escalation) plan for which Bush now has a boner is that those at the center of power have not abandoned their core goals in Iraq, most significantly that of maintaining a long-term (perhaps permanent) military presence in that country, as well as substantial influence over its political and economic affairs. Among the ISG’s 79 recommendations (all of which the group claims must be implemented) is one that focuses on privatization of Iraq’s oil industry. Just this week the Iraqi parliament introduced legislation to allow exploration and development of petroleum resources by foreign contractors, an unprecedented move towards the kind of neoliberal economic model now being rejected in South America. I think that, once again, people are missing the central story here. The objective of the Iraq project is not to produce a democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors as the administration suggests; it is to secure an Iraq that is amenable to U.S. military, political, and economic penetration. If that can be accomplished through the establishment of a secure democracy, it’s fine by Bush and company, but that’s by no means a requirement (see: Pakistan).
So Rumsfeld departs with the pirate ship still steady on course. Goodness gracious me.
luv u,
jp
