Attack Iran: End Game For Iraq War, Bush Legacy?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Jan 20, 2007.

  1. Still One More Card to Play
    by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Posted Jan 12, 2007

    Wednesday night, George Bush seemed to play his last card in the Iraq war. It was not impressive. Consider.

    First, he warned of the awful consequences of a U.S. defeat: "Radical Islamic extremism would grow ... in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

    Bush then warned of the awful consequences of the Baker commission proposal to "announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces." "(T)o step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."

    Twin those two warnings, and what is Bush saying?

    His critics favor a course in Iraq that risks the fall of Baghdad, Iraq torn apart, slaughter of our friends, a surge in Islamic terror, the toppling of moderate Arab states, chaos in the Gulf, billions in oil revenue flowing to al-Qaida killers and a nuclear Iran.

    And how do we avert so monstrous a calamity?

    A "surge" of 21,500 troops, 15 percent of the U.S. forces already in Iraq, to pacify the capital. And even that troop commitment is "not open-ended."

    This is just not credible. For, if the situation is as dire as Bush says and the potential disaster as horrific as he describes, the logical course would be to treble the number of troops in Iraq and commit to fight indefinitely.

    How explain the disconnect? Is Bush absurdly exaggerating the consequences of a pullout?

    No. U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East are indeed at risk because of the hubristic folly of our political elite in putting them there, when they launched this insane war.

    But Bush cannot now commit to fight to victory, because the war is lost in the United States. Two-thirds of the American people are unwilling to make the sacrifices to save Iraq. Though they do not want a defeat and may not realize the consequences of a defeat, they are willing to risk a defeat, rather than continue to read of American kids being IED'ed to death and dismemberment in Baghdad and Anbar. The people want out and are saying to hell with the consequences.

    That is the political realty that underlay the president's modest proposal of a "surge" to avert what he warns is a strategic disaster.

    But Bush has to know the card he played is not going to save the pot into which he has plunged his legacy, the credibility of his country and America's standing as a superpower.

    Which leads me to believe Bush has yet another card to play, an ace up his sleeve. What might that be?

    Midway through his speech, almost as an aside, Bush made a pointed accusation at and issued a direct threat to -- Tehran.

    To defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq and stabilize "the region in the face of extremist challenge," Bush interjected, "begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

    "These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

    Now, any networks providing "advanced weaponry and training" to jihadists and insurgents are outside Iraq. Otherwise, they would have been neutralized by air strikes already.

    So, where are they? Answer: inside Syria and Iran. And Bush says we are going to "seek out and destroy" these networks.

    Which suggests to this writer that, while the "surge" is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation -- widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran.

    "I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region," said Bush. "We will deploy ... Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."

    But there is no need for more carrier-based fighter-bombers in Iraq. And the insurgents have no missiles against which anyone would need Patriot missiles to defend. You only need Patriots if your target country has missiles with which to retaliate against you.

    What Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian "networks" are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.

    And should this scenario play out, what would Hillary, Biden, Kerry, McCain, Giuliani, and even Pelosi and Obama do? Hail Bush as a Churchill. At first.

    And Bush would have another legacy than a lost war in Iraq. Like Menachem Begin, only big-time, he would have his own Osirak.
  2. achilles28


    Your fascination with the fairy tale "heroics" of contemporary politicians is disturbing and very naïve IMO
  3. Arnie


    I really think this would be a mistake. Iran has a large segment of the population that doen't agree with their president. I think we would ruin any chance of getting a more moderate government in Iran....back to the way they were going before this last nut job (Iran's, not ours :D) got elected. If we attack Iran, you can forget peace in the middle east for the next 50 years.
  4. If we don't attack Iran, you may very well say bye-bye to a few American cities and millions of citizens.

    Are you willing to take that gamble? Not that it matters. The question is if Bush is willing to.
  5. Oh yes, don't you know that those Iranians who oppose Iranian leadership will greet US forces as liberators and shower them with flowers...

  6. Oh yes, Iran will bypass nuking Israel and send their nuke filled planes and missiles directly to the USA...

  7. Do you remember those nonexistant Iraqi WMDs?

    The same assholes are screaming about Iran now?

    Do you see the pattern of disinformation and lies?
  8. Oh no....Iran will bypass sending their nukes directly and instead pass them off to some terrorist organization that will bring them in and detonate them.

    Same result: American city (cities) in ashes, millions of dead Americans.

    Better to trust the Iranians than, say, Bush, who is Satan incarnate to the moonbats.
  9. Must be those Iraqi nukes that Saddam gave to Syria and were then handed to Iran. :D
  10. Really? How would iran, with no military to speaks, of across an ocean, 1000's of miles away, defeat a 1st world country's army?

    And what about Iraq's WMD threat? Oh, my mistake, this time it's differerent.

    Looking forward to you telling us too why the US destoryed iraq in 1991, causing suffering to citizens, and left a brutal dictator in power for TEN MORE YEARS because it suited them? Only to go in and waste the country again.

    Damn scary, all these looney brainwashed USA soliders fighting for their "god", killing at will, unleashing their bred hatred of 'towel heads' across the world. Frightening.

    [b[The question is, how many darkskinned people does bush have to kill using WMD, before we wil be "safe". Answer: none - that is terrorism and barbarism. [/b]

    And their buddy isreal who also hates dark skinned peoepl. Their soliders laugh as they mow down the 'animals'. But their 'god' loves it, apparently.

    But we are same and rational, all others are "Barbaric and backward and fanatical". Riiight..

    We wil not give up on our oil interests. There is no barganing with us, we are not rational when it comes to occupying parts of the world for profit
    #10     Jan 21, 2007