EXECUTING HUSSEIN WON’T END THE INSURGENCY
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political ActivistIt seems as though time has flowed backwards to a particular day in December of 2003.
Forget the
day, just remember the
moment. The exact moment when military officials in Iraq crowed: “We got him!” and the Bush administration cheered.
Cheered over the capture of Saddam Hussein.
And it was then that Bush made the infamous declaration (among many) that the raging insurgency would lay down its arms and help in the rebuilding of Iraq; while under the misguided notion that it was
Saddam whom was in control of the insurgency, that it was
Saddam whom was guiding and funding it somehow from his foxhole in the ground.
So now–fast forward to 2006–to another
December, this time on Saturday, the 30th, and beholden the execution of a man for crimes not against humanity or his own people, but because this man did what he thought was
right in an attempt on his life more than 20 years ago.
Malaki and others like him who thirst for revenge for what Hussein did to them while he was President of Iraq–will get what they’ve wanted–but his execution won’t stop the insurgency.
In fact, it may make things
worse for the US-led occupation forces–not better.
But that won’t matter. Either on Saturday, or possibly Sunday, Bush will be back onto his podium, declaring that: “an evil man has been brought to justice. And he won’t harm anyone again. This has been a victory for this young democracy, and a blow to all those who seek to topple it.”
You know: The
usual Wilsonian jargon which Bush is so famous for lately.
Unfortunately for Bush and his war supporters, the execution of a disposed ex-President of Iraq may in fact be the
trigger point for a broader and deeper civil war which will end up toppling this so-called “young democracy”.
Makes me wonder just what kind of a contingency “plan” Bush will have for that instance?
If he has one at all.Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1@yahoo.com
WE NEED OUR TROOPS HERE–NOT IRAQ
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political ActivistGiven the fact that Bush’s stubbornness has led the US military to having no plan at all these last 4 years for Iraq–begs this question:
What makes people believe
that he actually has a plan now?
The Iraq war is a classic case study of ill-preparedness and zero planning. And not only that, but the war
itself needn’t be fought at all–had the American public been told the
truth on the exact nature of Saddam’s WMD capabilities.
So despite the administration’s
declarations that the Iraqis have their freedoms and democracy–and Saddam is about to be hanged–Bush’s new plan for the coming new year may not be so
new to the American people after all.
A troop increase in Baghdad was already tried once before in Operation Together Forward in June. The Bush team sent in 4,000 extra troops to try and pacify
only the capital of Iraq–in hopes that this would spill over into the adjoining areas of the country and erase away much of the insurgency.
But it didn’t.
Twenty or thirty thousand extra troops now or in the coming months, may not do the job either. And most of these troops are not
new. The increase is going to be taken from reservists already serving in Iraq and elsewhere.
But not the US. The reason is that we don’t have the manpower available. The Iraq war and the war on terror globally has pretty much strained the country’s military past the breaking point. And many people see this President’s proposed action as the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’.
Soldiers’ tours are being further and further extended. And that in itself is a morale breaker.
Given what happened to Katrina last year, there was little National Guard troops available to secure the devastated parts of New Orleans after the storm hit.
And to make matters worse, those troops in Iraq could’ve been used to help keep order and aid in the rebuilding of the devastated city.
But if 140,000, or even 170,000 troops in Iraq can’t stabilize a country in less than 4 years, then what hope does that leave for us here– in case of another Katrina-like disaster?
Who will we turn to help us in times of crisis and emergencies?
Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1@yahoo.com
NEW BOSS; SAME OLD SCHOOL RHETORIC
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political ActivistHappy days are here once again! Rumsfeld’s out, the new guy is in!
And by
new guy, I mean Robert Gates.
Gates was sworn in on Dec. 18th as the new head of the Department of Defense–having served under President Bush’s father as CIA director from 1991-1993.
And he served as Texas A and M University’s president until being asked by the current Bush to serve as Secretary of Defense.
And while considered a pragmatist, Gates (like so many other administration officials these days), is a Cold War hawk.
He favors talks with Syria and Iran, but still reiterates the old fears that if we were to leave such and such a nation, misery would follow.
Case in point:
In the weeks leading up to the US’s withdrawal from Vietnam, many of the war’s staunchest supporters steadfastly cried out that if we were to
leave that country, the Vietcong would follow and attack this nation without warning–while many others said that the world would fall to the ravages of Communism if the United States were to withdraw.
Oddly how neither of that happened.
Fast forward about 32 years, and here we go again. Gates is on record saying that “failure in Iraq would lead to a calamity that would haunt the US for
years.”
Curiously enough, no one has told Gates that the United States has
already failed in many of its objectives to bring peace and stability to the Middle East.
Iraq is no longer democratic in the sense of the word. There is no real functioning government, no stability, no peace, no
nothing which would give American taxpayers (and hopefully Congress) any more reason to continue funding this boondoggle.
And what’s worse, the veritable
explosion of violence is threatening to engulf the region in such a way that it would make all the wars since Vietnam look like a picnic compared to what may already be taking place in the here and now.
And while we can see it unfolding before our eyes, why hasn’t none of the Bush officials? Are they still
blind to the reality on the ground?
They must be, because apparently Gates is now too afflicted in the same manner as the rest: Eager to dismiss what he said as the truth; more eager to embrace all the old school rhetoric of the past six years regarding this dismal conflict.
And the result of such actions (or should I say
inactions) may be as disastrous for the US than anything cooked up by the Republican fear machine.
Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1@yahoo.com
GEORGE BUSH: THE MOST IGNORANT PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME?
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political ActivistNever before in American history has an American President gone out of his way to snub the public, study groups, and even his own party, like George W. Bush has.
And while some of his dwindling base of supporters may say that Bush is a rock and he is not straying from his bedrock principles of stubbornness and ignorance, many people who want a course change and some ray of hope…may find their ambitions dashed by reality.
Presently, the President still views his plan (or lack thereof) of a solid Middle East democracy as the only
viable option, and everything that the ISG proposed as being nothing more than ‘defeatist’ ideas which must be rejected at all costs.
Unfortunately, those ideas may be the only thing which will save American foreign policy for all time.
Primarily because talking to your
enemies is more a sign of strength than weakness. And if you were able to sit down and talk without resorting to grand-standing propaganda or Cold War party rhetoric about how this country is a threat to the world (Iraq) and this country is part of the “Axis of Evil” (North Korea), and this country has the capability to produce nuclear weapons–even though it’s 10 years or more away from actually having
anything nuclear; but instead has a
very limited missile delivery system to boot–(Iran), you would be able to get these leaders and their countries to toe the line a bit; thus giving America and its allies some much needed breathing room.
However…
However…
Not talking to them is more of a
weakness than a sign of strength. And that is just telling these said nations that you don’t give a damn about them, this is really all about you and what you want–nevermind the fact that there are
reasons why these countries are doing the things they are doing–but it doesn’t matter.
And that
behavior is what will turn any future foreign policy directives into a complete and mitigating disaster for future Presidents–because these countries (and many like them), will just point out Bush’s obstinance while he was President, and indicate that unless something changes with America’s foreign policies, these nation leaders will not feel so cordial towards the new girl or guy in the White House.
In essence, we will have to start over and start
doing things we have no choice in doing, all because of Bush’s ignorance and dangerously arrogant behavior towards the world.
But it doesn’t end there. A shocking report shows that Saudi Arabia is
funding the Sunni insurgency out of mere preservation.
Because in its eyes, if the US leaves anytime soon, it’ll be a racially motivated
bloodbath between the Shiites and the Sunni people which will commence, and the Saudis don‘t want to see that happen.
And make no bones about it, Iran is funding the Shiite militia death squads.
And what is Bush’s take on this?
Oddly enough, he hasn’t said a
word about his oil buddies involvement. Maybe he’s thinking that the Saudis can bring about peace in the Middle East by funding the supposed “bad guys”.
Who knows?
However ignorant Bush is now, he did make one point clear: We haven’t defeated the enemy. (Whoever that enemy is.) Heck, we aren’t even
close. And it’s been almost 4 years since we started this war over non-existent WMDs.
But with the death toll approaching 3000, how long will Bush go before America has finally had enough and demands Congress impeach him?
Not long–judging by the looks of things at the homefront.
Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1@yahoo.com
THE NEXT MOVE BELONGS TO BUSH
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political Activist
Today’s recommendations by the Iraq Study Group should be a wake-up call to President Bush.
And I say
should be.
Given the fact that Bush’s position on this Iraq war is at best–
unmovable–there is no reason to expect the President to act
now as opposed to what he stated as in “a timely fashion”.
A ‘timely fashion’ doesn’t preclude the idea that US forces should be foot-dragged through the next two years out of blind stubbornness and
inflexibility based on a man’s innate inability to see through his own foolish pride and accept the fact that words
alone will not change the current face or landscape of Iraq.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to let go of this fiasco and face the reality that we no longer are in control of this war. That in order for us to
leave, we are going to have to start embracing ideas which were given the cold shoulder before, and start acting like a reasonable member of the international community–instead of a complete jackass.
But it’s all up to Bush. The ball is in his court once again–just like it was a month prior to 9-11. But unlike the September attacks, this ball that could have even
more deadlier implications for the US...
should Bush drop it again.Eating crow once in awhile isn’t bad. But Bush may have to do just that–in order to save face in Iraq. If not, then we will continue to see ourselves and our capabilities diminish to nothing in the long term.
And watch as Middle East is consumed by an unthinkable regional war.Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1@yahoo.com
BUSH SUMMIT REVEALS EVEN MORE PROBLEMS FOR IRAQ’S FUTURE
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political Activist
I dunno here.
I was hoping for some kind of change upon the leaked report from the Iraq Study Group (ISG), before the Iraq summit got started (then aborted), then only settled on for as a brief “interview”.
But from all accounts, Bush is still trying to “stay the course” no matter what befalls our troops.
However, it goes much deeper than one man’s stubborn persistence in the face of a growing civil war. (Notice that Mr. Steve Hadley’s comments on this idea were: “Iraq has entered a new phase”.
Not a civil war. Clearly, the administration has yet to
embrace the reality that Iraq is truly sunk into a civil war–one that got its start after the February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Iraq.)
Iraq is truly in
chaos. And to simply embrace another man (who surprisingly share’s many of Bush’s delusional characteristics about how “swell” things are going in that country) by full supporting him regardless of the fact, is beyond shocking.
Bush has essentially told American voters to do what Cheney instructed Senator Patrick Leahy to go ahead with not to long ago. And that's to: “Go fudge yourself!”
Does it stop there? No.
Now, Bush is giving conflicting signals on what to do next in Iraq. First he tells us that we will stay until the job is done and now he says that we will only be there for as long as the Iraqi government wants us.
Which is it, Mr. President? What do you want us to do? Stay or go?
But Bush’s troubles are just beginning. The Iraqi government may not be around much longer–given how Malaki is facing a clear revolt within his own Shiite-run party. Because of the Bush summit, many Shiites and some Sunnis have boycotted Parliament (perhaps for good–based on some reports), and six of his own Cabinet members have also resigned under protest–citing that Malaki is simply too
weak to do anything about the conflict tearing Iraq apart at the seams.
Curiously enough, Malaki seems to mirror Bush’s own dysfunctional behavior. He believes (like Bush does) that things will only get better once American forces turn over security matters to the Iraqi people.
Oddly enough, the people don’t
want security, they want a
functional government!
So even if the ISG recommends a withdrawal for American troops (latest reports place it by 2008–when the next Presidential elections take place. Coincidence? No. This date was set for a
reason. To placate the voters to
think that the government was finally getting on the ball, but reality on the ground has proven the Bush administration wrong time and again.), it may not happen.
The situation in Iraq is threatening to ignite the
entire Middle East into a fiery cauldron of endless conflict. And not just the three civil wars which Saudi’s king had so eloquently pointed out.
And where would this place Bush if it were to happen?
Without an
exit strategy that’s for sure!
Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1@yahoo.com
