American Hegemony Is Not Guaranteed
Exactly as the British press predicted, last week's congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and Green Zone administrator Ryan Crocker set the propaganda stage for a Bush regime attack on Iran. On April 10, Robert H. Reid of The Associated Press reported: "The top U.S. commander has shifted the focus from al-Qaida to Iranian-backed 'special groups' as the main threat. ... The shift was articulated by Gen. Petraeus, who told Congress that 'unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.'"
According to the neocon propaganda, the "special groups" (have you ever heard of them before?) are breakaway elements of Moqtada al-Sadr's militia.
Nonsensical on its face, the Petraeus-Crocker testimony is just another mask in the macabre theater of lies that the Bush regime has told in order to justify its wars of naked aggression against Muslims.
Fact No. 1: Sadr is not allied with Iran. He speaks with an Iraqi voice and has his militia under orders to stand down from conflict. The Badr militia is the Shi'ite militia that is allied with Iran. Why did the United States and its Iraqi puppet Nouri al-Maliki attack Sadr's militia and not the Badr militia or the breakaway elements of Sadr's militia that allegedly now operate as gangs?
Fact No. 2: The Shi'ite militias and the Sunni insurgents are armed with weapons available from the unsecured weapon stockpiles of Saddam Hussein's army. If Iran were arming Iraqis, the Iraqi insurgents and militias would have armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades and surface-to-air missiles. These two weapons would neutralize the U.S. advantage by enabling Iraqis to destroy U.S. helicopter gunships, aircraft and tanks. The Iraqis cannot mass their forces as they have no weapons against U.S. air power. To destroy U.S. tanks, Iraqis have to guess the roads U.S. vehicles will travel and bury bombs constructed from artillery shells. The inability to directly attack armor and to defend against air attack denies offensive capability to Iraqis.
If the Iranians desired to arm Iraqis, they obviously would provide these two weapons that would change the course of the war.
Just as the Bush regime lied to Americans and the United Nations about why Iraq was attacked, hiding the real agenda behind false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaida, the Bush regime is now lying about why it needs to attack Iran. Could anyone possibly believe that Iran is so desirous of having its beautiful country bombed and its nuclear energy program destroyed that Iran would invite an attack by fighting a "proxy war" against the United States in Iraq?
That the Bush regime would tell such a blatant lie shows that the regime has no respect for the intelligence of the American public and no respect for the integrity of the U.S. media.
And why should it? The public and media have fallen for every lie the Bush regime has told.
The moral hypocrisy of U.S. politicians is unrivaled. John McCain says that if he were president he would not attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics because China has killed and injured 100 Tibetans who protested Tibet's occupation by China. Meanwhile, the Iraqi toll of the American occupation is 1 million dead and 4 million displaced. That comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. At what point does the U.S. occupation of Iraq graduate from a war crime to genocide?
Not to be outdone by McCain's hypocrisy, George W. Bush declared: "The message to the Iranians is: We will bring you to justice if you continue to try to infiltrate, send your agents or send surrogates to bring harm to our troops and-or the Iraqi citizens."
Consider our "Christian" president's position: It is perfectly appropriate for the United States to bomb and invade countries and send its agents and surrogates to harm Iraqis, Afghans, Somalians, Serbians and whomever, but resistance to American aggression is the mark of terrorism, and any country that aids America's victims is at war with America.
The three-week "cakewalk" war that would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues is now into its sixth year. According to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, the cost of the war to Americans is between 3 trillion and 5 trillion dollars. Five trillion dollars equals the entire U.S. personal and corporate income tax revenues for two years.
Of what benefit is this enormous expenditure to America? The price of oil and gasoline in U.S. dollars has tripled, the price of gold has quadrupled, and the dollar has declined sharply against other currencies. The national debt has rapidly mounted. America's reputation is in tatters.
The Bush regime's coming attack on Iran will widen the war dramatically and escalate the costs.
Not content with war with Iran, Republican presidential candidate McCain in a speech written for him by neocon warmonger Robert Kagan promises to confront both Russia and China.
Three questions present themselves:
—Will our foreign creditors, principally China, Japan and Saudi Arabia, finance a third monstrous Bush regime war crime?
—Will Iran sit on its hands and wait on the American bombs to fall?
—Will Russia and China passively wait to be confronted by the warmonger McCain?
Should a country that is overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan be preparing to attack yet a third country, while threatening to interfere in the affairs of two large nuclear powers? What sort of political leadership seeks to initiate conflict in so many unpromising directions?
With Iran, Russia, China and North Korea threatened by American hegemonic belligerence, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario that would terminate all pretense of American power: For example, instead of waiting to be attacked, Iran uses its Chinese and Russian anti-ship missiles, against which the United States reportedly has poor means of defense, and sinks every ship in the American carrier strike forces that have been foolishly massed in the Persian Gulf, simultaneously taking out the Saudi oil fields and the Green Zone in Baghdad, the headquarters of the U.S. occupation. Shi'ite militias break the U.S. supply lines from Kuwait, and Iranian troops destroy the dispersed U.S. forces in Iraq before they can be concentrated to battle strength.
Simultaneously, North Korea crosses the demilitarized zone and takes South Korea, China seizes Taiwan and dumps a trillion dollars of U.S. Treasury bonds on the market. Russia goes on full nuclear alert and cuts off all natural gas to Europe.
What would the Bush regime do? Wet its pants? Push the button and end the world?
If America really had dangerous enemies, surely the enemies would collude to take advantage of a dramatically overextended delusional regime that, blinded by its own arrogance and hubris, issues gratuitous threats and lives by Mao's doctrine that power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
There are other less dramatic scenarios. Why does the United States assume that only it can initiate aggression, boycotts, freezes on financial assets of other countries and bans on foreign banks from participation in the international banking system? If the rest of the world were to tire of American aggression or to develop a moral conscience, it would be easy to organize a boycott of America and ban U.S. banks from participating in the international banking system.
Such a boycott would be especially effective at the present time, with the balance sheets of U.S. banks impaired by subprime derivatives and the U.S. government dependent on foreign loans in order to finance its day-to-day activities.
Sooner or later it will occur to other countries that putting up with America is a habit that they don't need to continue.
Does America really need more political leadership that takes us in such unpromising directions?
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
I heard Kagan has some ancestrial heratige to a senior bolshevik official with the same last name but I am not sure about that.
As Pat Buchannan mentioned McCain wants to kick out Russia from the G8 and establish a league of democracies. Mabye he will confront the number of pro-US dictatorships like all of the middle East except Iran, Azerbajin and Pakistan. I also hate how often he uses Hitler as a metaphor in his speeches saying appeasement of the Nazi lead to WW2 when he justified going to war with Iraq.
My answers (for what they're worth) to Dr. Roberts' questions.
1. China and Japan will not finance a US war against Iran, but Saudi Arabia might.
2. Iran will let the US strike the first blow because it is a relatively non-aggresive country. I don't predict what its reaction will be if it has sufficient retaliatory capacity surviving a first strike which may well be nuclear.
3. Russia and China will not wait for a US nuclear first strike against them, but will take some sort of military initiative in the event of a US attack on Iran. It may well be asymetrical.
Mr. Higdon,
If Iranian intelligence finds out that it is absolutely certain that the U.S. is going to strike Iran, Iran may well strike the first blow. It would likely come in Iraq with militias of certain Shiite groups cutting U.S. Army supply lines to Kuwait and a substantial Iranian armor thrust, of which they are capable, cutting off the U.S. Army which is pocketed across Iraq. The Marines might make it out through Jordan since they are more concentrated there and their supplies flow though Jordan. But substantial numbers of U.S. Army personnel might be killed or captured. One supposes, of course, that the Pentagon has planned for this potential; but then, who knows.
It would likely come in Iraq with militias of certain Shiite groups cutting U.S. Army supply lines to Kuwait and a substantial Iranian armor thrust, of which they are capable, cutting off the U.S. Army which is pocketed across Iraq.
Yes, the nightmare scenario that others such as William Lind have outlined.
America is not going to attack Iran. First of all, it does not have the money to do it. Second the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked and gasoline would go as high as $7 a gallon, completely destroying an already collapsed American economy. Third it would suffer a catastrophic military defeat, probably the greatest in its history. Fourth, its ally Israel would be destroyed.
The cooler heads know all this.
Mr. Chan @ 4
I can only hope that there are rational men in the Pentagon who see this and have a modicum of influence on the administration. My concern is not for this failed administration and its failed policies but for the men and women whom this failed administration with its failed policies have put in harms way and for the aftermath which will befall all of us.
Has there ever been a regime so stupidly insane as this one?
Mr. Peters,
Could Iran ever be "absolutely certain" that the US was going to strike before the strike took place? We are talking about an air and missile strike launched at a couple of hours notice from air bases, carriers and submarines far from Iran. Iran could not possibly beat that punch with armored divisions or even Shia militias, although the latter could be a nuisance. If the Iranians wanted to pre-empt, they could only do it through missile salvoes at the US fleet and other military facilities in the Gulf region, oil production and transport facilities, and Israel. And they would know that US nuclear retaliation would mean the end of their country.
They might be more likely to simply absorb a first strike if it was limited (if it wasn't they'd be finished anyway), permit Russia and China to take the lead in reaction, get the benefit from the entire Muslim world erupting in fury against the US, and plot their own vengeance by terrorism further down the road.
General BETRAYUS. I would welcome at this point a temporary military dictatorship in the U.S. of those revolting against BETRAYUS and the current insane W. Bush regime. We're a banana republic now anyway. There's a myth among the neo-cons subconsciously held that God is going to intervene to save U.S. i.e. U.Srael. They're butchers on par with the nazis, and [apparently] don't see themselves but of course secular or religious they 'know' God.
See - Myth Works - even when sadly and pathetically misappropriated.
Mr. Peters--
Agreed!
I was doing a search for Mr. Lind's discussion--here it is:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_12_18/article.html
I am reminded that he was talking about Iran retaliating and not a pre-emptive strike...
Rather, American Hegemony is Quite Unlikely.
The Russian Bear is coming out of hibernation, perhaps in time to defend us from the petro-dollar fueled renewal of the historical Islamic Jihad (which prevailed from the late 600s to late 1600s); and China is only now starting to overcoming the Cultural Revolution and assert is unlimited potential. Oh yes, don't forget the Fourth Reich (a/k/a the EU), whose currency, the Gemran Mark (a/k/a the "Euro") is already crushing the dollar.
"That the Bush regime would tell such a blatant lie shows that the regime has ... no respect for the integrity of the U.S. media."
What integrity?
I believe the authors here at Chronicles have integrity, and call things like they see them. There are others within the media and on the web who do so as well.
In general, though, the US media have sold their souls, and now lick the hands that feed them.
There's two myths out here currently in my opinion. 1.) That the Islam of 600 - 1600 is the Islam of today. Which although a profoundly misguided ideology (like judaism) time helps a little bit to provide amelioration. Except that true also, time itself doesn't cure, (or nudge conceptually onto the right track - we're creatures of habit -), without historical build-up by virtue of movement in the right direction conceptually which is knowable...And precisely not that mystery which forever does reside at the center of things.
And
2.) that China has unlimited potential. That's silly. I would say that these myths are designed to pander to both fear and greed which neo-cons have expertly exploited in America and especially in the W. Bush null set. You can fill an empty space with anything just about. Dahhh!!! In the Bush set if they can even understand what you tell them, they're proud of themselves and just assume they 'agree' with it.
Is Robert Taft today a neo-con? Perhaps I should ask him, are you?
slow track ... no replies to # 14. Only can talk about what's been memorized ... or imagined? That's not 'thinking' yet. So let me then 'tell' you since you Can hear/listen (good - knock-knock-knocking on heaven's door) about the current situation poetically because you don't yet compehend yourselves. And then follow my commands for if I am anything I AM the one who commands: "For these of force must your oblations be, Since I their altar, you enpatron me." -W.S.
And then, since We are, we shall become song. But make no mistake about it YOU are the patron i.e. Christianity. Don't be fooled.
It's ok it's only now that time has come. Don't beat yourselves Up too badly. It ain't (sorry) Robert Taft's world no more.
scared? In my opinion God loves it when we rattle the floors of heaven, especially if appropriately. then a smile.
hey - delete this one - monitors seriously. unless... ? ... Since it's only how it feels to me, very little me. Lord, take this badge off of me - I don't need it anymore.
Should I go into China's woes - they enslaved 10's of millions by kicking them off ALL of their communistic benefits to serve the capitalist class. They are now a disguntled working poor with nothing but misery to show for it and nothing to lose. ... Plus - their country so suddenly having no history of conservation (no need prior) has become a cesspool with subsequently the cancer rate going through the roof (which was previously unknown) like here but worse... etc., etc. They hope including the ruling elite that America folds or pauses so they can as well. Get real. Why would you if not MONSTERS want that to go on? Is that your 'belief' we all have no choice but to be so? Sure the iron rule at bottom may be eat or be eaten - are we yet at the bottom? Well, not yet.
William S. Lind says: "The elephant in the parlor is, of course, the fact that Israel wants an attack on Iran, and for Republicans and Democrats alike, Israel is She Who Must Be Obeyed."
If this is true, then the chances of avoiding war with Iran are slim.
the she Devil. Yes. The PROBLEM with judaism in essence and remember essence means something in its totality is this. And thus it is deep within judaism and those brought up in or with that imprimatur or imprint conceptually making the perception/s so close to the bone although it's not who they are genetically - until transformed - it might as well be - whether secularly inclined or religious:
bondage to the (essentially arbitrary) law in secular or religious Judaism (i.e. that history or historical build-up) stand on one foot etc. as discipline, admirably in search of the divine aspect (good) = SUBconsciously & consciously pursuing (chasing one's tail) a Subjective (and thus) patently relative dialectic that is UNFORTUNATELY also wed (and thus elevated 'as if' at a divine aspect) to absolute idealism (i.e. 'her' making it just so) which is subsequently nonetheless & pathetically patently delusion as well. (I call it verbal knowledge alone or 'the' narrative.) They LIVE that delusion in an organized fashion. That's the bad news. The good news is that mistake is both LEARNED & taught, not genetic. But it also proves you see - Myth Works - even when misappropriated sadly.
The REASON Christianity is NOT just another wrinkle or splinter of Judaism is due to the Pauline or Greek sensibility transferred in the Gospels thank God via St. Paul. He's our Religion's reality check so to speak. He's the testosterone as it were. The link between what 'she' would have it be not having to Do it herself (i.e. NOT verbal knowledge alone) and the Actual. You need BOTH. We have it culturally and civilizationally - Judaism only has 'her'. It's WHY she alone never became and NEVER can become a civilization itself. She NEEDS subsequently her patron. i.e. YOU.
Get it? 'She' as it were should win at Home NOT out HERE because that perspective is only 1/2 the coconut. The U.S. NOW is only 1/2 the coconut pretending to be whole. ... Questions?
Is Jim Fellows some sort of computer program that cherry picks vocabulary from a thread and then spews it back out in a random hash of computer-generated nonsense?
Since our "nation" is now little more than a conglomeration of cults vying for influence its a bit hopeful or lazy for PCR to refer to an entity named "America." While enough rubes from the Heartland can be roused like its a permanent WWII, with the, " 'we' gonna kick butt" type rhetoric, political reality is more like Lebanon 1975. Our overgrown kids in the military are led by what constitutes an ethnic militia leadership. Doubt what I wrote then listen to the Hugh Hewitt radio show and then tell me that the division of labor is not obvious. The ethnic militia leadership details fantastic stories of popular pablum for the lazy mind, then comes on the gentile missleers promoting the latest and greatest military hardware and training all ready to be used in the great crusade dreamed up by the former.
stats - when you unconsciously take the subjective and thus relative (verbal knowledge alone or 'the' narrative) to *avoid sufficient linkage with the actual (since the actual may be too painful or the lesser pain being avoided); and ALSO put the subsequent delusion within the context of an absolute purview (aspect or status of the divine.) And that's your religion plus tribal and supremacist as well (also 'as if' divinely sanctioned)...Those residing within that culture closer than conscious thought are ALWAYS subsequently within a world of trouble largely of their own making. And if they dominate the host civilization on purpose since that is their putsch always, what floats their boats as a result of their culture - the civlization itself is also inevitably immersed in that fabrication.
Sound familiar - or too 'cherry picked'? ... To save one, meaning as a practical matter, you have to save both by somehow making the parties aware of themselves. I don't even know if there's a more succinct vocabulary for it yet? ... But since 'stats' for you it's only a word game and so you project that out at me well, one can only ask - are you aware? Possibly you are aware since choosing the moniker (or word deception) 'stats', 'as if' that's where you're coming from. If even that was an unconscious mistake and not a conscious deception you're a perfect [unconscious] example.
'stats': figures don't lie but liars who are conscious can figure. Often sadly the lies are even unbeknownst to themselves. The latter is of course the more hopeful scenario. This doesn't mean I'm 'right' meaning perfectly accurate, but it doesn't mean I'm not. The mistakes at play today are deep-seated and require some digging. The truth is difficult to find sometimes but not impossible. Good luck.
Humor: I must be 'the commanding one' - Darth Vader albeit of the darkness (concealed) *and of the light (unconcealed). stats, would rather have me as HAL the computer program in the other film : '2001 A Space Idiosyncrasy' -
"Hello stats... how are you today. are your stats correct? is that what you 'believe' mr. stats?"
"Yes Hal, I'm innocent."
"Well, stats that's hard to believe. No one, I have been programmed to say, is innocent?"
*Good news, Hal's wrong... the simple sometimes eludes, and in Fact well, the innocent strangely enough - are innocent. HAL'S programmer may have been bogus. Thus even HAL suffers some deep-seated errors. Funny, too. Rewind.
What strikes me about the War on Terror is that the strength and malevolence of the adversary is far less than in the Cold War, whereas the degree of self-righteousness, urgency, hatefulness, willingness to revoke civil liberties, sloganeering, jingoism, and intolerance of debate are greater. 9/11 will cover a lot of sins, but I worry that the American people are being taught that Islam, and religion by implication, is worse than Bolshevism.
I think Pat Buchanan is wrong about the American people being strongly against the war. Patriotism sells when the media is behind it. During the Cold War half of the media was playing for the other side. There's plenty of reason to be against the war, but I suspect the anti-war majority is pretty tepid and ambivalent. If it were a burning issue the Democrats would be pressing it harder.
The one thing that was correct about the Bush Administration's take on Iraq is that any nation with the ability to land a nuke in Manhattan has us over a barrel, because life here is good and we don't like the idea of dying by millions. Considering the costs of the Iraq war, and the impracticality/immorality of attempting to wipe Islam from the face of the earth, perhaps we should work toward d'etente with Islam. Apologize for genuine transgressions, get off their land, and send them nice aid packages in return for their agreeing not to build nukes and not to bother Israel. They might not agree until a Palestinian solution was worked out, but that too might be possible if we took a more even-handed approach. It would cost a pittance compared to what we are spending now, and would save a lot of lives. And with a new administration in place, we wouldn't have to eat too much crow.