Stopping the Next War
by Patrick J. Buchanan
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
President Bush has won the Battle of September.
When he turns over the presidency on Jan. 20, 2009, there will likely be as many U.S. troops in Iraq as there were when Congress was elected to bring them home in November 2006.
That is the meaning of Gen. Petraeus’ recommendation, adopted by President Bush, that 6,000 U.S. troops be home by Christmas and the surge of 30,000 ended by April. Come November 2008, there will likely still be 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Will this make America safer, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked. “I don’t know,” answered the general. An honest answer. None of us know.
The general did know, however, that “a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences.”
So we are trapped, fighting a war in which “victory” is not assured and perhaps not attainable—to avert a strategic disaster and humanitarian catastrophe should we walk away.
While the posturing of the Democrats, using Petraeus as a foil for their frustration and rage, was appalling, it is understandable. For, as this writer warned the day Baghdad fell, this time, we really “hit the tar baby.”
What has the war cost? Going on 3,800 U.S. dead and 28,000 wounded. More than 100,000 Iraqis are dead; 2 million, including most Christians and much of the professional class, have fled. Millions have been ethnically cleansed from neighborhoods where their families had lived for generations.
Once the most advanced country in the Arab world, Iraq has been devastated and is coming apart. Sectarian, civil and tribal war has broken out. Al-Qaida has a presence. And it is a fair prediction that when the Americans depart, they will have fought the longest war in their history, only to have replaced the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with a Shia dictatorship aligned with Iran.
Across the region, the situation appears bleak. In Pakistan, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself. Bin Laden is sending out tapes. Gen. Musharraf, who rules a nation of 170 million with atom bombs, is floundering. The Taliban have made a comeback. As our allies have left or are leaving Iraq, including the Brits, so, too, the NATO allies in Afghanistan are wearying of the struggle.
In the United States, the war has taken its toll, as do all no-win wars. With the cost of the two wars closing in on $1 trillion, we are as divided as we were during Korea and Vietnam.
As Truman fell to 23 percent after firing Gen. MacArthur, and was drubbed in New Hampshire, and LBJ broken after Tet and dropped out, Bush has seen his support fall from near 90 percent at “Mission Accomplished” to near 30 percent. Approval of his war leadership is virtually nonexistent.
Gen. Petraeus is trusted; his commander-in-chief is not.
To the cost of our dead and wounded must be added the near-breaking of the U.S. Army, the estrangement of our allies and the pandemic hatred of America across the Arab world.
As for the “cakewalk” crowd that accused opponents of the war of lacking in patriotism, they never repented their demagoguery. Despite the pre-invasion propaganda they pumped out about Saddam’s awesome weapons and ties to 9-11, or their assurances that U.S. troops would be welcomed with candy and flowers, like Paris in ‘44, and their prediction that a democracy would arise in Iraq to which Islamic nations would look as a model, they have never been called to account.
Now they are back with a new enemy for America to attack.
This time the target is Tehran—and once again, they have the ear of this most ideological and unreflective of presidents.
Speaking to the American Legion, Bush used rhetoric against Iran equal in bellicosity to anything he used on Iraq before invading.
Iran “is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” Iran “funds terrorist groups like Hamas. … Iran is sending arms to the Taliban.” Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology threatens to put the Middle East and Gulf “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.”
As Bush ratchets up the rhetoric, Russia, China and, reportedly, Germany are balking at new U.N. sanctions. That leaves Bush only the military option if he wishes to effect the nuclear castration of Iran. And Gen. Petraeus just provided him the rationale.
“It is increasingly apparent,” said Petraeus, “that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.”
Petraeus’ charge that Iran is fighting a “proxy war” against America comports with the new War Party propaganda line that we have been at war with Iran since 1979 and Bush needs no authorization from Congress to fight it more aggressively.
Congress gave Bush a blank check for the Iraq war. Any chance Congress will at least insist the administration come to Capitol Hill to make the case for the next war, on Iran, before Bush launches it? Probably not.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Jeff Springer on 13 September 2007:
wow. i wonder if bush’s daddy [at least nominally sane?] cringes these days-?- and repents of his own lack of backbone in refusing the first gulf war? … his son is just an irresponsible monster in the hands of monster-neocons who are manipulated from jerusalem…and will neither be held to account for iraq, as they have not been, nor for iran. why would they be – they rule Here, in all the ways that don’t change with elections.
2 Comment by ECHS1967 on 14 September 2007:
In other words, we’re now out more American lives than we lost on 9/11, plus a trillion dollars, give or take, plus the good will of nations once disposed to trust us, plus our once-robust Bill of Rights, plus a U.S. military that used to be pumped and buffed … and not only are al-Qaeda and the Taliban still out there, they’re tan, rested and ready … Employing the Robert Welch template of conspiracy analysis, one has to wonder whether George W. Bush isn’t actually an al-Qaeda agent …
I’m not serious, of course … he isn’t, of course … it only looks that way …
3 Pingback by Eunomia · July Surprise? on 14 September 2007:
[...] Mr. Buchanan and Dr. Wilson are also discussing the possibility of an Iranian war. [...]
4 Comment by Jimmy on 14 September 2007:
It’s gonna happen. No matter what.
Petraeus said ‘we cannot win Iraq solely in Iraq’.
So… Win they must. Honor thing right. Huckabee made it pretty clear. It’s utter madness.
5 Comment by Ben on 14 September 2007:
“… said Petraeus …”
http://cdn.moveon.org/pac/content/pac/pdfs/PetraeusNYTad.pdf
6 Comment by ECHS1967 on 14 September 2007:
Jimmy: “Huckabee made it pretty clear. It’s utter madness.”
Yup. But it has been educational. Having lived through Vietnam, I never thought I would see such folly repeated. Having lived through Watergate, I never thought I would see a president impeached for lying about cheating on his wife — and another president not impeached for trumping up a war and eviscerating the Bill of Rights. Also, I never would have thought that any president could do this much damage in so short a time.
Whenever I get into a ruckus with a Bush supporter (there are some around, although they’re not as pushy as they used to be), I observe, simply, “On Sept, 12, 2001, the United States had the support and sympathy of most of the world. So what happened?”
That’s usually the end of the conversation …
7 Comment by Johan Dieckmann on 14 September 2007:
Mr. Bush, your sheikh is dead
Sep 14, ‘07
“Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq on Thursday, was the congenial face of US efforts to engage Sunnis in reconciliation with the Shiite-led government. The prime suspect is al-Qaeda, which the sheikh’s alliance was fighting with weapons and money supplied by the US. But Abu Risha had other enemies, especially among Sunnis, whose goal is ending the occupation, not befriending it. Whoever is responsible, the “surge is a success” story being sold by the White House and its tame general has been ruined.
… …”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II15Ak03.html
8 Comment by robert m. peters on 15 September 2007:
Yes, as Mr. Buchanan said, “When Baghdad fell, we hit the Tar Baby.” Well, there ain’t no brier patch for to rescue ourselves in. Ol’ Brer Fox, whoever he is in this scheme of metaphors, is about to roast us and skin us alive.
On a less metaphorical note, I note that the legal and well-established corruption when insulates these immoral and unlawful wars and those who bring them to be is still going on. Here in Louisiana, for instance, we’re having a race for governor. The man who is likely to win it is Mr. Bobby Jindal. By conventional standards, he is a moral man. He holds the “Republican” conservative credentials for Southern climes: pro-life, pro-gun, for a smaller general government, etc. In truth, we’d have been far better off had we been elected last time, just barely loosing to Blanco. Here is, however, the very heart of the subtle corruption: he is a party man; he has been the conduit of billions of federal dollars (other people’s hard-earned dollars confiscated by the general government in one way or the other) into Louisiana. The people are grateful to him for the stolen goods which they have received and are grateful to the Oberpatron – Bush.
It is precisely these Lincolnesque, neo-mercantilist internal improvement scams which are used to enrich the oligarchy and corrupt the people that buy men like Bush the political room to ply their evil.
We sell our souls so cheaply!
9 Pingback by Politeuma · Cost of Empire on 15 September 2007:
[...] have been ethnically cleansed from neighborhoods where their families had lived for generations. ~ Patrick J. Buchanan No comments Comments feed for this article Trackback [...]
10 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 15 September 2007:
There used to be a fairly popular thought that the United States could not sustain domestic economy without an external war, by virtue of which “The President would act as an agent for arm’s dealers and manufacturers in front of our Congress” and obtain funding – hence growth. I am not that much of a doubting Tom, but I’d love to hear if Mr. Buchanan has a thought on that topic. Admittedly much of it borders on vague conspiracies and similar theories were a lot more popular after the JFK assassination. Today’s climate can not be compared with the mid 1960s (internaly).
11 Comment by Jeff Springer on 15 September 2007:
I think I’m becoming a veritable nihilist … god & the world destroy each other = win – win
although ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist, it’s just a concept like the concept of zero … as a result of the above – for the first time in all of time – there’s ABSOLUTELY nothing.
this may be my new religion. think of the peace and the silence. amen. Ahmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … but there’s not even that.
sadly this may not be possible. have a nice day.
12 Comment by Dr. Jay on 15 September 2007:
“… I think I’m becoming a veritable nihilist … god & the world destroy each other = win – win
although ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist, it’s just a concept like the concept of zero … as a result of the above – for the first time in all of time – there’s ABSOLUTELY nothing.
this may be my new religion. think of the peace and the silence. amen. …”
Sehr interessant, mein Freund, sehr interessant!… Please make yourself comfortable, hier ist zee couch. Und for how long haf you been hafing zeese feelings?…
“… Ahmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … …”
Say Ommmmmmmm… Ommmmmmmm…
“… but there’s not even that.
sadly this may not be possible. …”
Bist du nicht gesund?…
“… have a nice day. …”
Take two and call me in the morning. Gute Nacht.
13 Comment by Philip Candido on 15 September 2007:
There used to be a fairly popular thought that the United States could not sustain domestic economy without an external war, by virtue of which “The President would act as an agent for arm’s dealers and manufacturers in front of our Congress” and obtain funding – hence growth.
There is a lot of truth in that. When the government goes to war it has to borrow money, and borrowing it has to invest in certain businesses, which in turn employ more workers who now have more buying power to spend at Walmart for cheap Chinese slave labor produced crap. Borrowing at interest almost as bad as what we do, banks become wealthier and they make their investments accordingly. So every time a bomb lands in an Iraqi village, a banker gets his wings
This is why when we are disgusted with useless wars killing innocents in Serbia, Rwanda, Iraq, Americans voted for someone who promised not to send our troops all around the world, we get someone who did exactly the opposite, exactly what we tried to get away from! You vote for A and you get B. It is almost like some episode of 24.
14 Comment by Yankee Doodle on 16 September 2007:
On September 18th, 2001, the 107th Congress gave Bush all the authorization he needs. All Bush has to do is declare that he believes Iran had a role in 9/11 and that Iran may be helping prepare another terror attack; Bush needs to prove nothing to anyone.
http://stopislamicconquest.blogspot.com/2007/08/king-george.html
By the way, Mr. Buchanan: I was never much of a fan of yours, until I actually started hearing what you have to say. Thanks for nothing, mainstream media!
15 Comment by Ed Roberts on 16 September 2007:
Bush won what? There was no battle of September. Bush “wins” by default, as he has no opposition in Congress or in the mainstream media.
16 Comment by Joe Legris on 16 September 2007:
It’s time to pull out and pull the veil from the identity of the enemy. Western democracy is under threat from Islam. Political correctness will undo us until we come to accept the identity of our real enemy.
17 Comment by Philip Candido on 16 September 2007:
It’s time to pull out and pull the veil from the identity of the enemy. Western democracy is under threat from Islam. Political correctness will undo us until we come to accept the identity of our real enemy.
Sure, but how do you do that when that enemy is now poised to take over Europe and has a strong fifth column over here? There are one of two things:
1) Wage a holy war of sorts, destroy Mecca and make it a point to kill Muslims.
2) Secure our borders and inspect our ports, engage racial profiling and stop catering to Islamic special interests. Classify Islam as a political organization similar to Communism and demand loyalty tests.
Problem with #1: It can’t work. You can’t go to war with 1/6th of the world’s population, and if you did you would create a rash of terrorism the likes of which all the intifadas would pale in comparison to.
Problem with #2: It makes too much sense! It doesn’t matter what fanatical Muslim regimes pop up in Iraq (and they will, thanks to Bush) or anywhere else, if we secure our borders and our ports, we will not have a problem with terrorism.
Useless wars where our best men get killed and the Jihadists are only emboldened undermine our security.
18 Comment by Yankee Doodle on 16 September 2007:
–>”1) Wage a holy war of sorts, destroy Mecca and make it a point to kill Muslims. ”
Many Muslims practice a form of Islam that is relatively benign; in fact, many Muslims are just as threatened by the nutters as we infidels are. Why drive them into the hands of our enemy?
–>”It doesn’t matter what fanatical Muslim regimes pop up in Iraq (and they will, thanks to Bush)”
You nailed it. Hussein was a brute and a dirtbag, but, believe it or not, he was on the nutters’ hit list just as much as we are.
Now Iraq is up for grabs, and runs the very serious risk of becoming another Afghanistan or Somalia, or an appendage of Iran.
Thanks to King George!
19 Comment by Mickey Droney on 16 September 2007:
Mr. Candido,
I couldn’t agree with you more. There ceases to be a need for a so-called “Patriot Act” if the subversives are kept from entering the country in the first place.
20 Comment by AZiguri on 18 September 2007:
“… if we secure our borders and our ports, we will not have a problem with terrorism”, says Philip. I don’t think he suggests building the United States into a castle to which no terrorists will have access. As history indicates, castles eventually rot from within and crumble. I don’t think he had this in mind when writing his comment.
Terrorism has no color or nationality. It may come from the Middle East as well as from Europe, Asia and Africa. It may come from outside the United States or from within.
I don’t think American borders and ports are not secure. If they had not been, we would have witnessed more terrorism at home. But no matter how well they may be guarded, they cannot be one hundred percent secure because the enemy always will find loopholes. The best way to fight terrorism is fight it outside the United States. Attack, not only military, is the best defense.
In the comments posted on this website there is nothing about the role of Russia in the fight against terrorism. Respondents tend to forget this major player on the world scene. Russia pays lip service to the fight against it but, as facts show, that country is sabotaging the U.S. anti-terrorism war. Russians have always been supplying the Middle East terrorists with weapons and Iran will nuclear technology. In October 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian spy, who was assassinated by the Russian espionage network in London, described the #2 man of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as a KGB-trained agent.
See link below:
http://www.tldm.org/News9/RussianInfluenceOnMideast.htm
21 Comment by Philip Candido on 19 September 2007:
I couldn’t agree with you more. There ceases to be a need for a so-called “Patriot Act” if the subversives are kept from entering the country in the first place.
Glad to see we agree on something.
22 Comment by Aldebanlohoperaldi Huffghaffson on 20 September 2007:
Israeli Control of the Mass Media & the 9-11 Cover-Up
By: ChristopherBollyn
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=108923
The government and controlled media have lied to the public about 9-11 for 6 years.
Those who have discerned and exposed the lies about the “false flag” terror attacks
and the fraudulent “War on Terror” have been treated like madmen and criminals.
It’s time for this criminal nightmare to end.
23 Comment by AZiguri on 24 September 2007:
My assumption is that most of the respondents here are pro-Putin since nothing is said about Russia torpedoing the fight against terrorism. Are you volunteers or mercenaries?