Bush's
New Strategy -
The March Of Folly
By Robert Fisk
12 January 2007
The
Independent
There will be timetables, deadlines,
benchmarks, goals for both America and its Iraqi satraps. But the war
against terror can still be won. We shall prevail. Victory or death.
And it shall be death.
President Bush's announcement
early this morning tolled every bell. A billion dollars of extra aid
for Iraq, a diary of future success as the Shia powers of Iraq
still to be referred to as the "democratically elected government"
march in lockstep with America's best men and women to restore
order and strike fear into the hearts of al-Qa'ida. It will take time
oh, yes, it will take years, at least three in the words of Washington's
top commander in the field, General Raymond Odierno this week
but the mission will be accomplished.
Mission accomplished. Wasn't
that the refrain almost four years ago, on that lonely aircraft carrier
off California, Bush striding the deck in his flying suit? And only
a few months later, the President had a message for Osama bin Laden
and the insurgents of Iraq. "Bring 'em on!" he shouted. And
on they came. Few paid attention late last year when the Islamist leadership
of this most ferocious of Arab rebellions proclaimed Bush a war criminal
but asked him not to withdraw his troops. "We haven't yet killed
enough of them," their videotaped statement announced.
Well, they will have their
chance now. How ironic that it was the ghastly Saddam, dignified amid
his lynch mob, who dared on the scaffold to tell the truth which Bush
and Blair would not utter: that Iraq has become "hell" .
It is de rigueur, these days,
to recall Vietnam, the false victories, the body counts, the torture
and the murders but history is littered with powerful men who
thought they could batter their way to victory against the odds. Napoleon
comes to mind; not the emperor who retreated from Moscow, but the man
who believed the wild guerrilleros of French-occupied Spain could be
liquidated. He tortured them, he executed them, he propped up a local
Spanish administration of what we would now call Quislings, al-Malikis
to a man. He rightly accused his enemies Moore and Wellington
of supporting the insurgents. And when faced with defeat, Napoleon
took the personal decision "to relaunch the machine" and advanced
to recapture Madrid, just as Bush intends to recapture Baghdad. Of course,
it ended in disaster. And George Bush is no Napoleon Bonaparte.
No, I would turn to another,
less flamboyant, far more modern politician for prophecy, an American
who understood, just before the 2003 launch of Bush's illegal invasion
of Iraq, what would happen to the arrogance of power. For their relevance
this morning, the words of the conservative politician Pat Buchanan
deserve to be written in marble:
"We will soon launch
an imperial war on Iraq with all the 'On to Berlin' bravado with which
French poilus and British tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion
will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict ... For a militant
Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will
never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world
...
"The one endeavour at
which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and
guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French
out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of
Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon... We have started up
the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went
before."
But George Bush dare not
see these armies of the past, their ghosts as palpable as the phantoms
of the 3,000 Americans let us forget the hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis already done to death in this obscene war, and those
future spirits of the dead still living amid the 20,000 men and women
whom Bush is now sending to Iraq. In Baghdad, they will move into both
Sunni and Shia "insurgent strongholds" as opposed to
just the Sunni variety which they vainly invested in the autumn
because this time, and again I quote General Odierno, it is crucial
the security plan be " evenhanded". This time, he said, "we
have to have a believable approach, of going after Sunni and Shia extremists".
But a "believable approach"
is what Bush does not have. The days of even-handed oppression disappeared
in the aftermath of invasion.
"Democracy" should
have been introduced at the start not delayed until the Shias
threatened to join the insurgency if Paul Bremer, America's second proconsul,
did not hold elections just as the American military should have
prevented the anarchy of April 2003. The killing of 14 Sunni civilians
by US paratroopers at Fallujah that spring set the seal on the insurgency.
Yes, Syria and Iran could help George Bush. But Tehran was part of his
toytown "Axis of Evil", Damascus a mere satellite. They were
to be future prey, once Project Iraq proved successful. Then there came
the shame of our torture, our murders, the mass ethnic cleansing in
the land we said we had liberated.
And so more US troops must
die, sacrificed for those who have already died. We cannot betray those
who have been killed. It is a lie, of course. Every desperate man keeps
gambling, preferably with other men's lives.
But the Bushes and Blairs
have experienced war through television and Hollywood; this is both
their illusion and their shield.
Historians will one day ask
if the West did not plunge into its Middle East catastrophe so blithely
because not one member of any Western government except Colin
Powell, and he has shuffled off stage ever fought in a war. The
Churchills have gone, used as a wardrobe for a prime minister who lied
to his people and a president who, given the chance to fight for his
country, felt his Vietnam mission was to defend the skies over Texas.
But still he talks of victory,
as ignorant of the past as he is of the future.
Pat Buchanan ended his prophecy
with imperishable words: "The only lesson we learn from history
is that we do not learn from history."
The Bush plan, and
the question of withdrawal
What Bush says
20,000 troops increase
Mistake of not sending sufficient
troops must be rectified. Troops stabilise Baghdad and reinforce Anbar
province, on condition that Iraqis take on Shia militias
$1bn reconstruction
aid
Fresh funds will help create
jobs and stimulate economy to show Iraqis there can be a peace dividend,
and friendly Middle East states should help out too
Pullout
US commitment to Iraq is
not open-ended but no timetable for troop withdrawal, even though US
troops are expected to hand control to Iraqis by November
What Congress says
20,000 troops increase
Troop build-up is a mistake.
House expected to vote on increase, Senate legislation forces Bush to
seek congressional approval but neither move could block troop deployment
$1bn reconstruction
aid
Don't throw good money after
bad. US has squandered billions since the invasion and Democrats plan
investigation. Millions of dollars 'overpaid' by Pentagon to Iraq contractors
Pullout
Bush has not learnt the lesson
of November's mid-term elections which gave Democrats control of the
House and Senate on the platform of a phased withdrawal from Iraq
What Baker says
20,000 troops increase
Up to 20,000 military trainers
and troops embedded into and supporting Iraqi army, while combat troops
drawn down to avoid increase in total numbers
$1bn reconstruction
aid
US economic assistance should
be boosted to $5bn per year. US should take anti-corruption measures
by posting oil contracts on the internet for outside scrutiny
Pullout
All US combat troops not
needed for force protection should be out of Iraq by the first quarter
of 2008
Likely outcome
20,000 troops increase
Escalation of conflict
Money will be wasted, with
official corruption in Iraq said to drain $7bn a year
Pullout
Troop surge could disguise
'cut and run' depending on the circumstances in both Iraq and America
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights