Desperately seeking casus belli

The Bush-Cheney war regime and the Pentagon use various journalists as conduits for propaganda they want to get to the public. They used Judy Miller and recently Michael Gordon of the NY Times. They use Tim Russert of NBC. They use David Martin at CBS. They have used ABC journalists too. Here the Pentagon uses a CNN journaist to probe for casus belli with Iran. Analysts have suggested that the U.S. is angling for a naval incident with Iran similar to The Gulf of Tonkin incident which was used as pretext for escalating the U.S. war in Vietnam.

Officials: Iranian patrol boats probe Iraqi waters

quote:

---

POSTED: 1836 GMT (0236 HKT), February 19, 2007

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Officials: Iranian patrol boats recently entered Iraqi waters near oil terminals
• U.S. Navy officer says Iran trying to see what response its actions get
• Iran's actions the subject of recent U.S. military briefings, officials say
• U.S. assessment is Iran trying to raise its military presence in Persian Gulf

From Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iranian patrol boats have increased attempts in the last week to assess defenses near Iraqi offshore oil terminals, U.S. military officials said Monday.

The Iranian actions at the northern end of the Persian Gulf have been a subject of operational briefings for U.S. military personnel in recent days, the officials said.

The officials -- who said they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter -- said that the United States does not see the Iranian moves as aggressive or provocative. The assessment is that the probes are part of an Iranian effort to raise its military presence in the gulf.

Officials said that for several months they have seen Iranian flagged vessels attempt to approach oil terminals in the area, but activity rose last week.

On at least two days, Iranian patrol boats crossed into Iraqi waters at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, the officials said.

The boats stayed inside Iraqi waters for several minutes before Iraqi security forces told them to leave. The Iranian boats did not approach the oil terminals.

Iraqi security forces recently took over the main responsibility for guarding the terminals, although U.S. naval forces remain nearby.

A senior U.S. Navy officer said he thinks Iran is trying to see what response its actions get from Iraqi and U.S. naval forces. The Navy officer said that in the last several months Iranian naval forces have expanded their area of operations inside the gulf, often increasing activity in offshore areas for training and exercises.

The U.S. Navy has encountered Iranian ships and small fishing vessels in several cases, but there have been no hostilities, the officer said.

The intelligence assessment is that in many cases the Iranians are watching the U.S. Navy to see how it operates. The officer confirmed to CNN that the Navy has increased its security precautions when dealing with Iranian entities on the water to ensure there are no miscommunications or miscalculations.

U.S. ships will continue to render assistance to stranded mariners, including Iranians, the officer said, but will be cautious in approaching any Iranian boats seeking U.S. naval assistance.

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

No crackdown in Baquba?

Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush is ordering 17,500 additional U.S. troops to surge into Baghdad and another 4,000 to surge into Anbar province. (BTW, support personnel are going to push total U.S. deployment of troops WAY beyond 21,500).

Baghdad and Anbar make up roughly 25% (maybe slightly more) of the population of Iraq. What about the burgeoning violence in the ethnically divided city of Kirkuk and the surrounding oil rich region? What about Mosul, Fallujah, Ramadi, Takrit, Samarra, Najaf, Kerbala, and the rest of the cities, towns, and villages of Iraq that are not experiencing a surge of U.S. and Iraqi troops? Why won't violence just pop up in classic "whack-a-mole" fashion there instead of in Baghdad?

Baquba is a perfect example of why the current surge in Iraq will not save George W. Bush's and the Republic War Party's failed war in Iraq. We are throwing good money after bad and sending more U.S. troops to their deaths after wasting the lives of 3133 Americans in an unjust and unwinnable war.

Lawlessness turns Baquba into ghost town

quote:

---

POSTED: 1731 GMT (0131 HKT), February 16, 2007

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• City of 300,000 nearly shut down because of violence
• Residents live in fear of being kidnapped, tortured and killed
• Resident: "I can't tell you who they are. They will kill me."

By Arwa Damon
CNN

Editor's note: In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events. Here, CNN's Arwa Damon describes a recent tour of the Iraqi city of Baquba.

BAQUBA, Iraq (CNN) -- "Watch out for snipers," one of the soldiers said as I stepped out of the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle and stared at the deserted street.

Shops were shuttered, and mountains of trash were piled everywhere. I felt a wave of shock.

When I had walked these streets less than a year ago, the air was filled with the buzz of shoppers, vendors screaming prices and blaring car horns. Rows of stalls were filled with everything from fruits and vegetables to women's lingerie, electronic equipment and music. It was a bustling marketplace.

But now, everything is different in this city of 300,000. Baquba is a virtual ghost town where most residents stay inside most of the day for fear of being kidnapped and tortured or killed. (Watch the desolate scenes of a city living in fear Video)

As I toured the area, down one of the alleys, there was a cluster of people.

"It's been like this for about four months now. Everything just shuts down after 11 [a.m.] because that's when they come and they kidnap and murder," one Iraqi said.

"But I can't tell you who they are. They will kill me. No one can say who they are."

"They" are extremist groups -- Sunni and Shia -- and criminal gangs.

At a minimum, it costs $10,000 to buy freedom from the kidnappers, and that's still no guarantee they won't kill you.

I pressed on. Four women peered down from a balcony and waved, a man rode by on a bicycle, and an empty bus rumbled down the street.

Baquba is the provincial capital of Diyala, an ethnic microcosm of Iraq. It is plagued with a variety of Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias and al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists.

It was always volatile -- one of the so-called "trouble spots" -- yet it still had a local government that functioned. It also had some of the better trained Iraqi Security Forces.

~~~snip~~~

Police among those being slaughtered

~~~cont'd~~~

---

7th U.S. helicopter reported down in Iraq

If reports are true, this would be the 7th U.S. helicopter to go down in Iraq in the past month. Do you think American soldiers are dying for a winnable cause, a just cause, or even a noble cause in Iraq? I don't. I think they are dying because of the stupidity of their Commander-in-Chief and his fear that that he and the United States will look weak if we retreat from the disaster in Iraq. Pride goes before the fall. As the author of "Blackhawk Down" says, helicopters represent U.S. superpower status, and they are David vs Goliath targets in this asymmetric war. In retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom's words, President Bush is relentlessly pursuing defeat in Iraq.

U.S. helicopter down north of Baghdad: residents

quote:

---

Reuters 7:55 am EST Sunday 11 February 2007

A U.S. Apache helicopter went down north of Baghdad on Sunday, local residents said, but the U.S. military said it was not aware of any such incident.

Residents reported seeing a missile hit the attack helicopter, which carries two crew, bringing it down in the Timayma area, near Taji, site of a major U.S. air base 20 km (12 miles) north of Baghdad.

U.S. military spokeswoman Lieutenant-Colonel Josslyn Aberle said she had no information on a helicopter crashing in the area.

If confirmed it would be the seventh U.S. helicopter to have come down in Iraq in the last three weeks. The U.S. military has confirmed that at least four of those were shot down after being struck by ground fire and says it has adjusted its tactics accordingly.

---

U.S. military: No copter has gone down

quote:

---

AP 8:06 am EST Sun 11 Feb 2007

The U.S. military said Sunday it has no reports of a helicopter going down after witnesses reported an Apache had crashed north of Baghdad.

Witnesses and police said the helicopter was shot down on Sunday, sending a plume of smoke into the air near the Bani Tamim village, in the area around the Taji air base, 12 miles north of Baghdad.

Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle, a U.S. military spokeswoman, said initial reports did not find that a helicopter had gone down, but she said the military check again to be sure.

At least six U.S. helicopters have crashed or been forced down under hostile fire since Jan. 20, including a Marine Sea Knight helicopter that crashed Wednesday near Taji, killing all seven people on board.

U.S. officials have said they are reviewing flight operations and tactics but maintain there is no evidence of sophisticated new weapons used in any of the latest attacks.

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Rush to war with Iran (cont'd)

The drumbeat-for-war cadence continues with only a minimalist discussion of its consequences. THREE related links with quotes below:

Of course, one way for the "international community" to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb or even the "very, very sensitive technology" (i.e. knowledge) to make one is for President "bomb 'em" Bush to be "forced", "as a last resort" of course, to attack Iranian nuclear and related (read military) facilities before his term in office mercifully ends on 20 January 2009.

Iran warned over nuclear demands

quote:

---

Last Updated: Saturday, 10 February 2007, 10:32 GMT - BBC News

German chancellor Angela Merkel has told a global security forum that the international community is determined to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons.

---------------------------------------------
"What we are talking about here is a very, very sensitive technology, and for that reason we need a high degree of transparency..."
German chancellor Angela Merkel
--------------------------------------------

~~~snip~~~

Speaking after Mrs Merkel, Mr Putin criticised the United States for the "almost uncontained" use of force in the world, and for encouraging other countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

"We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations," Mr Putin said.

"One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way ... This is very dangerous, nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law."

~~~snip~~~

---

Next, military analyst Michael Gordon of the liberal NY Times dutifully jumps on board the bomb Iran express. I heard Michael Gordon not so long ago on NPR say that he expects the U.S. to be in Iraq for years. Gordon seems to me to be a conduit for information the Bush-Cheney war regime wants to get out much like Judy Miller was and all too many big name journalists including Tim Russert still are.

Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says

quote:

---

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.

In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing “lethal support” to Shiite militants in Iraq.

The focus of American concern is known as an “explosively formed penetrator,” a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb being used by Shiite groups in attacks on American troops in Iraq. Attacks using the device have doubled in the past year, and have prompted increasing concern among military officers. In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.

Because the weapon can be fired from roadsides and is favored by Shiite militias, it has become a serious threat in Baghdad. Only a small fraction of the roadside bombs used in Iraq are explosively formed penetrators. But the device produces more casualties per attack than other types of roadside bombs.

Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile. The officials said they were willing to discuss the issue to respond to what they described as an increasingly worrisome threat to American forces in Iraq, and were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran.

The assessment was described in interviews over the past several weeks with American officials, including some whose agencies have previously been skeptical about the significance of Iran’s role in Iraq. Administration officials said they recognized that intelligence failures related to prewar American claims about Iraq’s weapons arsenal could make critics skeptical about the American claims.

The link that American intelligence has drawn to Iran is based on a number of factors, including an analysis of captured devices, examination of debris after attacks, and intelligence on training of Shiite militants in Iran and in Iraq by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and by Hezbollah militants believed to be working at the behest of Tehran.

The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.

The information includes interrogation reports from the raids indicating that money and weapons components are being brought into Iraq from across the Iranian border in vehicles that travel at night. One of the detainees has identified an Iranian operative as having supplied two of the bombs. The border crossing at Mehran is identified as a major crossing point for the smuggling of money and weapons for Shiite militants, according to the intelligence.

According to American intelligence, Iran has excelled in developing this type of bomb, and has provided similar technology to Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon. The manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq. In addition, some components of the bombs have been found with Iranian factory markings from 2006.

~~~snip~~~

---

Then there are the consequences of any diplomatic squeeze, increased sanctions, or outright attack on Iran ordered by the Commander-in-Chief and guardian of the freeworld, protector of global corporate democracy, and savior of western Christian civilization, George Walker Bush. Not too much emphasis is placed on those potential, largely predictable, and highly probable consequences of targeting Iran.

Al-Qaeda Suspects Color White House Debate Over Iran

quote:

---

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 10, 2007; A01

Last week, the CIA sent an urgent report to President Bush's National Security Council: Iranian authorities had arrested two al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. The suspects were caught along a well-worn, if little-noticed, route for militants determined to fight U.S. troops on Iraqi soil, according to a senior intelligence official.

The arrests were presented to Bush's senior policy advisers as evidence that Iran appears committed to stopping al-Qaeda foot traffic across its borders, the intelligence official said. That assessment comes at a time when the Bush administration, in an effort to push for further U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic, is preparing to publicly accuse Tehran of cooperating with and harboring al-Qaeda suspects.

The strategy has sparked a growing debate within the administration and the intelligence community, according to U.S. intelligence and government officials. One faction is pressing for more economic embargoes against Iran, including asset freezes and travel bans for the country's top leaders. But several senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials worry that a public push regarding the al-Qaeda suspects held in Iran could jeopardize U.S. intelligence-gathering and prompt the Iranians to free some of the most wanted individuals.

"There was real debate about all this," said one counterterrorism official. "If we go public, the Iranians could turn them loose." The official added: "At this point, we know where these guys are and at least they are off the streets. We could lose them for years if we go down this path."

The administration's planned diplomatic offensive is part of an effort to pressure Tehran from multiple directions. Bush has given the U.S. military the authority to kill or capture Iranian government agents working with Shiite militias inside Iraq. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said serial numbers and markings on some explosives used in Iraq indicate that the material came from Iran, but he offered no evidence.

With the aim of shaking Tehran's commitment to its nuclear program, Bush also approved last fall secret operations to target Iranian influence in southern Lebanon, in western Afghanistan, in the Palestinian territories and inside Iran. The new strategy, a senior administration official said, aims to portray Iran as a "terror-producing country, instead of an oil-producing country," with links to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and death squads in Iraq.

U.S. officials have asserted for years that several dozen al-Qaeda fighters, including Osama bin Laden's son, slipped across the Afghan border into Iran as U.S. troops hunted for the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. U.S. and allied intelligence services, which have monitored the men's presence inside Iran, reported that Tehran was holding them under house arrest as bargaining chips for potential deals with Washington.

Last fall, Bush administration officials asked the CIA to compile a list of those suspects so the White House could publicize their presence. For years, the administration has not revealed their names, in part because it sought to protect its intelligence sources but also because at the time the U.S. government was concealing the identities of suspects it was holding in secret CIA custody.

But the names of some of the men in Iran have become public, including "high-value" targets such as al-Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith of Kuwait and Saif al-Adel of Egypt. U.S. intelligence officials said they are members of the "al-Qaeda operational management committee." U.S. intelligence officials said there are suspicions, but no proof, that one of them may have been involved from afar in planning an attack in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in May 2003. Intelligence officials said bin Laden's son Saad is also being held with the other men in Iran.

Five administration officials were made available for interviews for this story on the condition that they not be identified. Other officials who spoke without permission -- including senior officials, career analysts and policymakers -- said their standing with the White House would be at risk if they were quoted by name.

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Surge this, George!

The surge ain't happening. Americans have not arrived in force although Gen. David Petraeus is now in charge and "the crackdown" is officially underway. Americans will continue to trickle in while the U.S. Congress continues to debate the surge and various non-binding resolutions as prelude to a real fight over continued funding for this failed war which will come later.

When Iraqis do show up for the surge, Iraq gov't soldiers who are mostly Shiites want to surge against Sunni militias but not Shiite militias. That is also Nouri al Maliki's unspoken position as voiced through an Iraqi position paper published yesterday or the day before (see third and final article below).

In sum and in short the surge is off to a sorry and inauspicious start. Also SecDef Robt Gates is already planning for what comes after a(nother) failed U.S. surge offensive (the 4th surge). Gates says this isn't the last straw while Gen. Petraeus says this is Iraq's last hope to avoid total chaos. Gates and Petraeus aren't even on the same page. Perfect example of the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants, make-it-up-as-they-go, disarticulated, incoherent, incompetent, doomed-to-fail U.S. strategy.

THREE articles linked below:

Infighting hampering Baghdad crackdown

quote:

---

Posted on Fri, Feb. 09, 2007

RYAN LENZ
Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi commanders are urging the Americans to go after Sunni targets as the first focus of the military push to secure Baghdad, displaying a sectarian tilt that is delaying full implementation of the plan to drive gunmen from the streets, U.S. officers say.

American officers, interviewed at the sprawling Camp Victory base at the western edge of the capital, also acknowledge they are finding little in their initial searches of Baghdad neighborhoods - suggesting either they received faulty intelligence or that the massive publicity that preceded the operation gave militants time to slip away.

The chief military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, said Wednesday that the much-anticipated Baghdad security operation was under way. His remarks came about a month after President Bush announced he was dispatching 21,500 more troops to curb sectarian bloodletting.

Under the plan, Baghdad is to be divided into nine zones, with Iraqi and American soldiers working side-by-side to clear each sector of Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents so that reconstruction programs can begin in safety.

Although Iraqis have seen an increase in the number of checkpoints and other security measures, there is little sign of a "surge" of troops in the streets. U.S. officials insist the public will see a big increase soon.

U.S. officers told The Associated Press that the delays in implementing the plan were in part a result of disagreements between American and Iraqi commanders about what neighborhoods should be cleared first.

During joint planning sessions, the Iraqis have been urging U.S. officials to focus on neighborhoods believed to harbor Sunni insurgents, according to officers familiar with the discussions. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive.

Several U.S. officers said the Iraqis, especially representatives of the Shiite-run Interior Ministry, played down the threat posed by the biggest Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army. They blamed much of the violence against Sunnis on fringe elements.

That led some U.S. officers to conclude that the Iraqis were afraid that confronting the Mahdi Army, led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, would undercut support for the Shiite-led government and trigger even more violence.

~~~snip~~~

---

Troop 'surge' has yet to materialize in Iraq

quote:

---

By Louise Roug
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

7:01 PM PST, February 9, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A month after the Bush administration announced a "surge" in troops for Baghdad, Iraqis are still waiting for anything to change.

Fewer than 20 percent of the additional Iraqi and American troops have arrived so far. And the roughly 5,000 troops that have arrived have yet to make a visible influence in this sprawling city of 6 million people, where thousands of gunmen already patrol the streets.

U.S. officials are trying to manage expectations domestically and in Iraq, continually reasserting that troops slowly will take up their positions in the city over the coming months.

But after one of the bloodiest weeks since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, Iraqis are increasingly impatient. A series of high-profile attacks on civilians and security forces killed more than 1,000 Iraqis and at least 33 U.S. troops in the last eight days.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he is investigating whether he can speed the pace of the troop buildup. But a senior Pentagon official said this week that it was unlikely that U.S. troops could be sent to Baghdad any faster than planned. The five brigades going to Baghdad are due to arrive one per month, with the final brigade arriving in May.

~~~snip~~~

---

As I have written before, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who is a Shiite and owes his ministership to Moqtada al Sadr is all too happy to crack down on Sunni militias but fuggedabout cracking down on Shiite militias in general and Sadr's Mehdi Army in particular. This is yet another reason why Bush's so called surge, another reckless idea touted as well advised and advertized as a "new strategy", is bound to fail exactly like every over tactic that Bush has initiated in the Iraq war. Simply put, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want an American occupation force in their country. Maliki and every other Iraqi conditioned by eons of intrigue easily play Bush and the stupid Americans as the fool they are. Iraqis want to take care of their own affairs and for the meddlesome, arrogant, dominating Americans to go home.

Iraq, U.S. Advised To Avoid Offensive Against Militiamen

quote:

---

Maliki's Influence Seen in Report

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 9, 2007; A14

BAGHDAD, Feb. 8 -- Iraqi and U.S. forces should not launch a military offensive against the militias -- most of them Shiite -- that are a major source of turmoil in Iraq, but should instead rely on nonviolent steps to bring militiamen into the political fold, according to an Iraqi report that draws largely on the views of prominent Shiite politicians.

"In the short-term at least, there can be no military offensive against the militias. Military confrontation, in the current climate, will only strengthen their appeal and swell their ranks," the Baghdad Institute for Public Policy Research concludes.

The institute said the 18-page report, "Dismantling Iraq's Militias," was based on a round-table discussion by six Shiite politicians, two Kurds and a Sunni Arab. Government officials said Thursday it would be considered in setting policy, but some here saw it as reflecting the private thinking of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as more U.S. troops arrive to try to end the violence.

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

The blame Iran casus belli game

The fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, is claiming that Iran in involved in supplying arms to Iraq (despite the fact that the U.S. military has not presented any evidence) is an indication that the blame Iran game is originating at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Many experts and avid observers conclude that President Bush has already decided to strike Iran before his term in office ends on 20 January 2009. That will leave the next President taking office with another war to deal with. Bush's desire for a wider region war will be fait accompli before he leaves office unless he is impeached forthwith. A war with Iran will damage this nation far more than it has already been damaged by the ill-advised war in Iraq.

U.S. blames Iran for Iraqi arms surge

quote:

---

The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 7, 2007

BAGHDAD

U.S. officials say they believe that Iran is supplying Shiite militias with new weapons, including more powerful roadside bombs, some of which they say could have found their way into the hands of Sunni insurgents who operate around Taji, north of Baghdad.

~~~snip~~~

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that the number of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, that had been placed alongside roads or in public places in Iraq had "doubled over the course of the last year," and he blamed Iran for supplying the most deadly of them.

The use of "explosively formed projectiles, which are a much more deadly form, that are coming into Iraq from Iran," had become much more prevalent, Pace said.

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Who is Robert Gates kidding?

The United States has not surged into Baghdad yet. The United States military has not yet even begun trying to stop the spiraling violence in Baghdad, yet Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tells lawmakers he holds out hope that there can be a drawdown of U.S. troops later this year.

Who is this guy kidding? Military leaders - including Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. George Casey - say we won't know if the surge is working until August - some say October or November. Just today Reuters is reporting that the Pentagon could boost its troops strength in Iraq by 3,000 beyond the 21,500 President Bush has already ordered deployed.

And Gates seriously thinks there is a remote possibility that U.S. troops levels can be decreased later this year? They will be INCREASED later this year! I'm sick of damn liars!

Gates will clearly recommend escalating U.S. troop level when the current surge option fails, and Gen. Pace is already fingering Iran (see paragraph in bold in article quoted below).

Note the final paragraph. Gates is already planning for what will occur beyond Baghdad. "It is not the last chance", Gates replied to Sen. John Warner. So we are already looking as another change of tactics, another "review", another "new" strategy, and another escalation of this war later this year.

McCain will campaign on winning the war, and Democrats will promise to stop the war. All the while Americans will hemorrhage blood and red ink toward no good end.

Pentagon could boost Iraq troop increase by 3,000 [Reuters] Tue Feb 6, 10:59 AM ET

Gates hopeful for 2007 troop withdrawal

quote:

---

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
1:13 pm EST Tuesday 06 February 2007

Defense Secretary Robert Gates held out hope Tuesday that U.S. forces might be able to start leaving Iraq before the end of the year, if daunting conditions including subdued violence and political reconciliation are met.

Gates told lawmakers the current buildup of forces by 21,500 troops is "not the last chance" to succeed in Iraq and conceded that he's considering what steps to take if it doesn't work.

"I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But he asserted, "We at this point are planning for success," and he described in sketchy form what could bring about the beginning of a withdrawal.

"It seems to me that if the plan to quiet Baghdad is successful and the Iraqis step up" by providing promised forces of their own and move toward resolving the country's bitter political disputes, Gates said, "I would hope that we would be able to begin drawing down our troops later this year."

Gates said last month that the troop increase seems likely to last months, not years. The outgoing top general in Iraq, George Casey, has said he hoped some of the extra troops could start returning home by late summer.

Gates was grilled on the war as the full Senate remained stalled on debating a resolution that would join most Democrats and some Republicans in a stinging critique of President Bush's course in Iraq.

His testimony came, too, with U.S. and Iraqi forces on the verge of opening their campaign to subdue the insurgency in Baghdad. Gates said the operation was to have started on Monday but "it's probably going to slip a few days, and it's probably going to be a rolling implementation."

Gates did not say what other options he was considering if the addition of U.S. forces fails to control the violence in Baghdad and western Anbar province, where the Sunni insurgency is based. But he and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought to assure lawmakers that the additional troops pegged for Iraq will go there with sufficient equipment for the fight.

They said that a shortage of armored vehicles in one phase of operations will be remedied by July, and troops who need them will not be deployed from their compound in Iraq until the vehicles are supplied.

Pace said the number of ammunition-packed roadside bombs encountered by U.S. forces has doubled in a year, and these weapons now include a deadlier version coming from Iran.

Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia pressed Gates on the question of what happens if Bush's plan doesn't work. "I have to believe we're thinking beyond the Baghdad operation," the senator said.

"It is not the last chance," Gates replied.

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Surge the hell out of Iraq

The Republic War Party cut off debate for the nonce on Bush's escalation of his failed war in Iraq aka "the surge option". Of course surge implies temporary, and this escalation is anything but. "Surge and sustain" is a bit of an oxymoron for the morons out there, and there are plenty of them (Wabisabi, Johnboy53, 61markh11, BigJohn767, jack, NukeGuy, tinman, pacific voyager, and even dimmer wits).

It is clear (even to none too bright Bush) that 17,500 additional troops in Baghdad will not turn the tide. Bush is already set to blame Maliki who can be as easily uninstalled as he was installed as the U.S.-puppet if he doesn't jump high enough when Bush commands.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds. Bush lied about the pretexts for war, lied about the progress of the war, and continues to lie to this day about the projected costs of this war over the next two years and beyond. Bush is nothing if not a lying machine.

The Republic War Party had its lunch handed to it last November 7th. Now the self-declared "Wartime President", Commander-in-Chief, and supreme Unitary Executive says he does have to pay attention to the will of the people because he is The Decider. Repugs try to put the onus on Democrats (and they do share blame for getting suckered by Bush into authorizing him to use force against Saddam "as a last resort" to "strengthen Bush's hand at the diplomacy table"). What a pathetic joke! What a horrendous mess. It will only get worse until the U.S. leaves Iraq lock, stock, and barrel.

So surge this, George buddy, surge this! I say take up Cheney's, Cornyn's, and all the other warmongers challenge and vote to cut off funding for this abomination of a war. We need to "get the job done" and end this war in Iraq by taking our money back from Bush and Cheney. It is called exercising the power of the elected democratic majority. It is called being responsible. It is called leadership. End this war NOW. No surge. No mas. No excuses.

Bloggers, TV talking heads, and radio pundits who want to analyse the parliamentary strategy behind the failed vote of no confidence in the Senate need to stop the blithering and demand an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The time for talk and debate are long over. It is time to put into action a plan get out of Iraq forthwith. Analyze that.

The War To Save The Surge

quote:

---

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post
Tuesday, February 6, 2007; A17

When political opponents tell you that to prove your seriousness you need to pursue a strategy they know is doomed to failure, shouldn't you be skeptical of their advice?

As the Senate considers a resolution to put itself on record opposing President Bush's escalation of the Iraq war through a "surge" of troops, Bush's backers are saying one thing and doing another.

They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war policy.

If you doubt that the war's supporters would love its opponents to put all their eggs in the fund-cutoff basket, consider what it means for them to sound as if the administration's only serious foes were the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan.

"I don't think these resolutions, nonbinding resolutions, are going to accomplish anything," Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and a Bush loyalist, told Gwen Ifill on PBS's "NewsHour" last week. "If we really had the courage of our convictions," Cornyn said, the "we" referring to the war's opponents, "if people said, 'You know what? This is an immoral task we've asked our troops to do because we don't believe in the mission, we think they're going to fail.' They ought to cut off funds. But to have this sort of -- this debate without any real consequence, I just don't think is the best use of our time."

So Cornyn wants to block a vote on a supposedly unimportant anti-surge resolution, but he would be happy to entertain a debate on a funding cutoff. Does that not send a message to the war's critics?

And it's not just Cornyn. It is now a standard talking point for supporters of this war, from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to Vice President Cheney himself, to try to block any statement by Congress of its views, except through a vote to block funds for Iraq.

"The Congress has control over the purse strings," said Cheney, who on most other occasions insists upon the executive's supremacy over Congress. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month, Cheney added: "They have the right, obviously, if they want to cut off funding, but in terms of this effort the president has made his decision. . . . We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done."

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

US don't know diddly about Iraq

The United States authors of its war on Iraq hardly knew Shiite from Sunni before President George W. Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I read there are no fewer than 24 armed factions in Iraq taking part in what the National Intelligence Estimate terms a civil war and much more.

Did we know about the Mehdi Army before the invasion? How about the Soldiers of Heaven who were killed in Najaf last week? The MEK is an anti-Iranian terrorist organization based in Iraq.

I had heard about the Kurdish PKK. There are also the rival groups, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which have been at loggerheads for much of the last decade.

I knew there are Kurdish separatists fighting for a Kurdish homeland in Turkey who find sanctuary in Iraqi Kurdistan, but I had not heard about the PJAK until today.

The United States has reretrievably broken Iraq, but any partition of Iraq - soft or otherwise - which creates an independent Kurdistan is unacceptable to Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Any partition of Iraq that leads to an independent Kurdistan is a formula for a regional war involving our ally Turkey (which is one of our few allies in the region and in the Muslim world). Bush has really mucked up bigtime in Iraq.

Hastening the Apocalypse by soj [Booman Tribune] Mon Feb 5th, 2007 at 07:33:12 AM EST

Dad's Gonna Kill Me

Baghdad that is. Rave for Richard Thomson's coming album and latest work. I'll look for album in May. You can listen to an mp3 of a cut called "Sweet Warrior" via the link below.

Legendary folk guitarist Richard Thompson records anti-war song from viewpoint of 'grunt' by Ron Brynaert [Raw Story] Published: Sunday February 4, 2007

BEESWEB - The official site of Richard Thompson

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Bush, Iran, soft power, compromise

The following headline sounds ominous. Is it really? Note that Reuters is using unnamed "diplomats" as its sources, and the IAEA has neither reported, commented, nor recommended a course of action. AFAIK Iran has the right to enrich uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. They have signed no treaty or agreement that precludes them from doing this.

Of course Bush could dialog with Iran. Iran has requested talks with the U.S., but Bush has refused. Bush prefers the hard power tactics of villifying, entrenching, stonewalling, coersion, threats, sanctions, intimidation, namecalling, and war to the soft power diplomatic tactics of negotiation and compromise.

If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons down the road there is time to negotiate, offer incentives (including trade concessions, international recognition, a non-aggression treaty, and soliciting Iran's help in calming Iraq so the U.S. can and does leave Iraq) in exchange for on-site IAEA verification that no nuclear weapons are being produced.

This seems like a fair exchange to me. Why won't Bush negotiate such a mutually beneficial agreement with Iran? Trust but verify. If Bush can get verification then that should mollify his valid concerns unless Bush's ulterior motive is war.

Iran installs 328 centrifuges at atomic site: sources

quote:

---

Reuters 7:11 am EST Monday 05 February 2007

Iran has installed two cascades of 164 centrifuges each in its underground Natanz nuclear plant, laying a basis for "industrial-scale" enrichment of uranium for atomic fuel, European diplomatic sources said on Monday.

The cascades were to be test-run shortly, without uranium feedstock inside, and fuel material would then be added if the tests were successful, they said. The 328 centrifuges would be the vanguard of 3,000 planned for installation in coming months.

Iran completed infrastructure preparations to launch the vast subterranean plant, which is fortified and flanked by anti-aircraft guns, over the past several weeks.

Firing up the cascades would dramatically sharpen Iran's confrontation with Western powers that pushed through limited U.N. sanctions on Tehran in December to try to curb its nuclear activity over fears it is secretly trying to build atom bombs.

The Islamic Republic, the world's No. 4 oil producer, says it wants solely civilian atomic energy from uranium enrichment.

Diplomats said the installation of the first two cascades was likely to be the gist of Iran's planned announcement of significant progress in uranium enrichment on or before the February 11 completion of Islamic Revolution anniversary celebrations.

"Two cascades have been installed in the underground plant, but they are not yet being run with gas," said a European Union diplomat in Vienna, headquarters of the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspectors at Natanz.

"Their plan is to start dry-spinning the cascades within days and then start feeding them with UF6 (uranium feedstock gas)," the diplomat told Reuters, alluding to findings during recent visits by IAEA inspectors.

"The Iranians appear to intend to have about six cascades (roughly 1,000 centrifuges) installed by the spring, and the rest of the 3,000 by around June."

A diplomat from another EU state had identical information.

There was no immediate comment from the IAEA.

IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei will report to the U.N. Security Council on February 21 on whether Iran has heeded a demand to stop enriching uranium. If not, broader sanctions could loom.

"Iran is heading in the opposite direction from that sought by the Security Council," said the first EU diplomat.

---

Augusta Chronicle vs NY Times on the Iraq war

Damn what The Augusta Chronicle says about the Iraq war in its dumb-downed yellow journalism editorials. Who are their Iraq experts anyway? What embedded or non-embedded journalists does the AC have in Iraq?

The New York Times has reporters in Iraq, has military analysts on its staff, has an editorial board that can think, and has writers who can write intelligently. Political agendas aside, the NY Times makes its case with facts, reason, and logic. It is the right wing reactionary AC Chronicle that uses fear and anti-intellectualism to appeal to base emotions, crude reasoning, and meaness.

Below is a reasoned editorial which is truthful and shines an objective light on the situation in Iraq - like it's conclusions or not. (BTW, I don't agree with all of the NY Times' military analyst Michael Gordon's conclusions in his pieces).

President Bush wants to sends thousands of more U.S. troops (still far too few to prevail) into the caldron, quagmire, meat grinder (pick your metaphor) of Iraq and spend hundreds of billions more money (we don't have) over the final two years of his Presidency. Bush projects a budget surplus 3 years after he leaves office. That speak directly to what a joke of a man we have for a President. Americans are fools to put their sons and daughters at this man's disposal in his vain, wasteful, corrupt, stupid, expensive, unwinnable little war.

A Bleak Assessment on Iraq

quote:

---

February 5, 2007
New York Times Editorial

There isn’t much encouraging news in the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Ethnic and sectarian identities are hardening and violence is spiraling, as shown again in Saturday’s horrific Baghdad market bombing. Iraq’s new governing institutions are weak and leading politicians have a “winner-take-all attitude” that can only make matters even worse.

The intelligence agencies see “real improvements” in Iraqi security forces. But those gains are strictly relative and the report still finds those forces unlikely to be able to successfully battle Shiite militias in the next 12 to 18 months.

A good example of this problem can be found in the accounts of last week’s battle between the Iraqi Army and a mysterious group of armed religious extremists outside the Shiite shrine city of Najaf. Najaf is supposed to be a showcase province for the American-trained Iraqi Army. The Pentagon chose it in December for the first symbolic handover of security responsibilities.

Barely a month later, in their first major battle, the Iraqis had to be bailed out by American air and ground forces. Hundreds of armed zealots had managed to set up a fortified encampment, complete with tunnels, trenches, blockades, 40 heavy machine guns and at least two antiaircraft weapons.

This happened just 10 miles northeast of the city at a time when hundreds of thousands of religious pilgrims and Iraq’s leading Shiite clerics were headed there for annual holiday observances. A successful attack on top clerics and pilgrims in Najaf would have been disastrous.

The Iraqis’ next mistake was sending only one army battalion and some police to raid this armed camp after its belated discovery. Government forces were quickly surrounded and called in American air support. Still pinned down, the Iraqis had to summon American ground support as well before they could advance on the camp.

This less-than-impressive performance by a supposedly top-of-the-line Iraqi Army division has grave implications for President Bush’s new Baghdad security drive, in which an additional 17,000 or so American troops are supposed to work in tandem with a much larger Iraqi force.

Perhaps the Iraqi security forces will improve over the next 18 months. But as the intelligence estimate also makes clear, the only real hope for Iraq lies in a bold reversal of course by Iraqi politicians that puts national reconciliation ahead of sectarian advantage. Mr. Bush needs to get serious about demanding such a change, including enforceable deadlines for overdue steps like eliminating militia supporters from the police, ending vengeful anti-Baathist measures targeting the Sunni middle class, and guaranteeing the fair allocation of oil revenues.

Otherwise, Iraq seems headed over the cliff.

---

Bush's "new" strategy in Iraq won't work

Nothing George W. Bush has done in Iraq has made things better. Not even hanging Saddam (or allowing Saddam to be hung by the U.S.-puppet government in Iraq while G.W. claimed he was asleep in Crawford) has helped any Iraqi in any way whatsoever. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has not helped the Kurds because they were living in virtually their own country under the U.S. no fly zone and under U.S. protection since 1991. Bush's neoconservative strategery has resulted in a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. Bush stupidly denies Iraq is in a civil war but the newly released National Intelligence Estimate says Iraq is in civil war and worse.

What George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq has done is create unending, unmitgated chaos in Iraq and in the region around Iraq. The Japanese are calling Bush's strategy "naive" which is code for stupid! Everybody knows the so-called surge doesn't have a chance in hell of working. The Nouri al-Maliki government is a joke as far as any kind of "unity" government in Iraq. Iraq has been irretrievably broken and cannot be put back together again.

The United States should call a regional summit in Iraq, invite international attendance, establish a fund for the reconstruction of Iraq, and get its troops the hell out of this hell-hole which Bush has dug. Nothing the U.S. can do sort of those measures will help the situation one iota.

Japan calls US policy in Iraq 'naive' AFP 4:47 am EST Sunday 04 February 2007

Doubts Run Deep on Reforms Crucial to Bush's Iraq Strategy Even Plan's Authors Say Political, Economic Changes May Fail - By Karen DeYoung - Washington Post Staff Writer - Sunday, February 4, 2007; A16 "The success of the Bush administration's new Iraq strategy depends on a series of rapid and dramatic political and economic reforms that even the plan's authors have little confidence will work."

Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause By Tom Lasseter - McClatchy Newspapers - Posted on Sat, Feb. 03, 2007

Bush-Osama symbiosis

It seems that Al Qa'ida certainly isn't on the run. It is no surprise that Osama bin Laden is still on the lam. George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are the best promoters of each other's interests. By directing the attacks on 9/11 (Osama got the idea for the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centers from seeing U.S.-supplied Israeli jets bomb tall building in Beirut in 1982 which left them burning) Osama gave George W. a just reason to invade Afghanistan and a sufficient pretense to invade Iraq much to Osama's glee. Bush played into his hands perfectly! The U.S. invasion of Iraq gave Al Qa'ida a just cause.

Now the continuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere against "Muslim extremists" are apparently bigger threats to the U.S. than international communism ever was if you judge it by the size of our "defense" spending. Of course the Bush-Cheney war regime and their corporate war economy love the excuse to spend more money! This is the "perfect storm" if I ever did see one. Count on even MORE spending next year with a failed surge and more "threats" for the Commander-in-Chief and U.S. strongman George W. Bush to muscle up to.

Remember how Afghanistan and "defense" spending helped cause the implosion of the Soviet Union. We are foolishly following in the same footsteps of that folly. George W. Bush will retire to Crawford and fuggedabout the struggle of ordinary Americans who used to be middle class but will become just more of the worlds working poor. The Decider has been allowed to decide their fate. Oh foolish Americans. Faux patriotism is folly. Bush and his super rich friends in the moneyed deciding class are laughing all the way to the bank.

Addendum: I wonder if 13% of GDP spending on the military during the Korean War was all off budget and financed by borrowing from foreign countries? I think not! All of the current spending on the war in Iraq is kep off budget and is being financed by borrowing from China and others - even if military spending is "only" 4% of our GDP.

Record $622 Billion Budget Requested for the Pentagon

quote:

---

By DAVID S. CLOUD
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — The Bush administration is seeking a record military budget of $622 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, Pentagon officials have said. The sum includes more than $140 billion for war-related costs.

The administration is also seeking $93 billion in the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, to pay for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the officials said.

The requests are part of the annual budget request to Congress for all federal spending programs. The budget is to be made public on Monday, and Congress will revise it in the coming months.

Together with money for combat operations this year already approved by Congress, the new request would push spending related to Iraq and Afghanistan to $163 billion.

“It is the highest level of spending since the height of the Korean War,” said Steven Kosiak, a military budget expert with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a policy analysis organization here.

Mr. Kosiak said that in 1952 the United States spent the equivalent of $645 billion in today’s dollars, factoring in inflation, and that in the Korean War military spending exceeded 13 percent of the gross national product. The figure is now 4 percent.

~~~snip~~~

---

Bush seeks $130 billion for U.S. Army

quote:

---

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 59 minutes ago

The U.S. Army, which has borne much of the weight of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, would get $130 billion under President Bush's 2008 budget — a sizable increase that would help ease the strain and meet equipment needs.

The proposal represents a 16 percent hike over this year, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. When coupled with additional tens of billions of dollars in emergency war funding, it "should go a long ways toward making the Army better," said Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Global warming and disinformation

CNN has seen documents and broadcast on their 7 am Sat 03 Feb 2007 newcast the report linked below of the $10,000 offer by the oil lobby to bribe anti-global warming "scientists" to undermine the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released yesterday (Friday 02 Feb 2007). That report says that human activity is with 90% certainty a product of human activity (i.e. the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent emission of green house gases - primarily carbon dioxide).

The well informed are so far ahead of the ignorant in this country that it isn't even funny. The rich work hard to ensure that most Americans stay ignorant and ill-informed so they can more easily be victimized by the ruling elites (such as the super wealthy, CEOs, and those who sit on the boards of directors of large transnational corporations). It is not surprising that the neoconservative rightwing thinktank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is involved in this effort.

Oil Lobby Offers $10,000 Payments To Global Warming Deniers To Push Back On Climate Study [Think Progress] 2007/02/01

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

A U.S. plan for Iraq - exit stage left

There is plenty of blame to go around - starting with Bush, the warmongers, the hawks, and consenting Democrats like Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd - everyone who voted to autorize President Bush to use force against Iran in what he said would only be "as a last resort" and Democrats said "would strengthen the President's hand at the diplomacy table." What a joke!

I and many others knew AT THE MOMENT that Bush talked about "Uranium from Africa" it was a lie and we knew the aluminum tubes were for missiles and not centrifuges and the mobile biological warfare labs were suspect too. There was a rush to war in Iraq - plain and simple - with no serious debate beforehand.

Iraq is spiraling downward. The U.S. is not and cannot act as a police force in Iraq. We can't stop the sectarian violence - but if we leave - that takes away the jihaddist appeal and the insurgency won't have us as a target. Iraq will settle down. Bush doesn't want this because Iran is a winner in that scenario.

The "soft partition" of Iraq may or may not work - certainly it will not work under U.S. aegis - and it won't work if Kurdistan becomes a truly independent state. Turkey and Iran will not tolerate a greater Kurdistan. No Sunnistan will be peaceful with a Shiastan and a Kurdistan hogging or controlling Iraq's oil reserves.

Bushco has engineered one hell of a mess - but we must extract ourselves from the equation. The Brzezenski 4 point peace plan calls for a regional peace conference, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, and an international fund to reconstruct Iraq. I would rather spend $245 billion on an international fund for reconstruction than another two years of fruitless war. We could predicate the release of those funds on a cessation of violence in Iraq.

There are ways out of the maze but Bush is too stupid, greedy, corrupt, and arrogant to begin to explore the various plans and seriously consider an exit strategy. The American people are way ahead of George W. Bush and history will leave Bush in the dust.

Only dead-enders want to stay in Iraq Hotlist by kos [Daily Kos front-page story] Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:01:13 PM PST

Mindless intertia, groupthink, mass psychosis

Only mindless inertia keeps the U.S. ship of state on its course towards disaster. It is possible to turn on a dime. There is no reason whatsoever to allow the failed U.S. war in Iraq to drag on and on and on just like the Vietnam war.

President Bush as Commander-in-Chief used his power of office to order more U.S. troops into harm's way in the face of a National Intelligence Estimate which says that the U.S. has little control over an increasingly perilous situation in Iraq. How smart and how responsible is that? Bush knew this delayed NIE report was about to be released and he knew its findinging before he ordered his stupid surge. Bush is throwing a snowball at an avalanche, and Brad thinks it has a possibility of working and must be given a chance to succeed. Played for a sucker again. Some people never learn. Americans are guilty of group think and mass psychosis when they buy anything that Bush says and continue to believe the disasterous U.S. war in Iraq is reversible or salvagable.

Iraq at Risk of Further Strife, Intelligence Report Warns

quote:

---

By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 2, 2007; A01

A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.

In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.

The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.

~~~snip~~~

---

No Public Iraq NIE? By Spencer Ackerman [TPMmuckraker] February 1, 2007, 6:11 PM

US to make public key judgements of Iraq intel assessment

quote:

---

AFP 5:00 am EST Friday 02 February 2007

US intelligence plans to make public "key judgements" of its first national assessment on Iraq in two and a half years, which reportedly warns of a strong chance the situation on the ground will grow worse.

---

The sober conclusion:

In the face of a National Intelligence Estimate warning of an increasingly perilous situation in Iraq, Commander-in-Chief Bush decides to throw more U.S. troops into the breech. That is NOT "supporting the troops". Bush is again acting in a self-serving impetuous selfish manner. Bush and his policy in Iraq have failed and the deaths of more U.S. soldiers can't save Bush's reputation or his lost war.