Prince Hassan: Neocons and Israel Plan “New 100 Years of War” in the Middle East

Monday March 26th 2007, 6:46 pm

Do a Google News search on “Prince Hassan Bin Tallal” or “Talal” and the results will point to the Daily Star of Lebanon and Today’s Zaman out of Turkey, but not one result over at the New York Times, ABC News, CNN, Fox, et al. Of course, this is hardly surprising, because you’re not supposed to know what Prince Hassan Bin Talal knows, in fact what millions of Arabs know. Here in America, we have more urgent concerns—for instance the “news” that the drug addict Anna Nicole Smith died of an overdose.

And what does Bin Talal and millions of Arabs know?

“After a keynote speech at the European Policy Centre in Brussels on the ‘coexistence of civilizations’ Prince Hassan Bin Tallal, crown prince of Jordan in the final days of the late King Hussein, spoke to Today’s Zaman…. Prince Hassan made it clear that the idea of breaking Iraq into pieces, as is circulating in some US and Israeli circles, would be a fatal mistake. The Jordanian prince warned that a possible break-up would play into the hands of Israeli ‘extremists,’ making Israel the dominant minority in a region of minorities.”

Prince Hassan “is now one of the leading intellectuals and activists of the Islamic world,” and yet his comments go unreported in this country. “I want to cite the Clean Break paper of 1996 attributed to the conservatives in the US. It seems to me that the concept of pan-Arabism, pan-Islamism, supra-national identity was actually taken to pieces by this paper, arguing somehow that fragmentation was taking place in that part of the world, so let us take full advantage of this. Muslims and Arabs do not need enemies as they are doing an excellent job of destroying each other. Of course this plays into the hands of Israeli extremists that believe Israel should emerge as the dominating minority in a region of minorities or a mosaic of minorities.”

The idea of taking “to pieces” Arab nationalism is hardly revelatory. “This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking,” writes Khalil Nakhleh in the publisher’s note to Israel Shahak’s transation of Oded Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. “Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme,” going back at least to the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former prime minister of Israel, as documented by Livia Rokach (Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary). Of course, until the Israelis hit the jackpot with the neocons, who were able to infiltrate the Bush administration and drive U.S. foreign policy, they were unable to carry out their master plan on the scale envisioned.

“End of the Westphalian system, the end of the Middle Eastern community of states, the beginning of a Balkanization that could lead, in the words of the former Iraqi Defense Minister Ali Allawi, to a new 100 years of war,” Hassan continues.

In short, a plan perfect for the Israelis and their neocon helpers.

Of course, none of this matters—as we are essentially deaf, dumb, and blind here in America, a condition facilitated by the corporate media—and it appears quite plain we are headed for what Hassan characterizes as a “new 100 years of war,” not simply in the Middle East but across the board.

But never mind. Former topless model and potential heiress Anna Nicole Smith has died from an overdose of prescription drugs. A TSA baggage screener stole a $100,000 watch from Paris Hilton’s bag. And most important of all, Britney Spears is back in the hospital again, this time with a toothache.

Israel's Last Chance

March 17, 2007

By Gabriel Kolko

The United States has given Israel $51.3 billion in military grants since 1949, most of it after 1974 – more than any other country in the post-1945 era. Israel has also received $11.2 billion in loans for military equipment, plus $31 billion in economic grants, not to mention loan guarantees or joint military projects. But major conditions on these military grants have meant that 74 percent of it has remained in the U.S. to purchase American arms. Since it creates jobs and profits in many districts, Congress is more than ready to respond to the cajoling of the Israel lobby. This vast sum has both enabled and forced Israel to prepare to fight an American-style war. But the US since 1950 has failed to win any of its big wars.

In early 2005 the new chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, Dan Halutz, embarked on the most extensive reorganization in the history of IDF. Halutz is an Air Force general and enamored with the doctrines that justify the ultra-modern equipment the Americans showered upon the Israelis. Attack helicopters, unmanned aircraft, advanced long-range intelligence and communications, and the like were at the top of his agenda. His was merely a variation of Donald Rumsfeld’s "shock and awe" concepts.

The 34-day war in Lebanon, starting July 12 last year, was a disastrous turning point for Israel. Until the Eliyahu Winograd Commission, which Olmert set up in September 2006, delivers its interim report in late April – which will cover the first five days of the war only – and resolves these matters, we will not know precisely the orders sent to specific units or the timing of all of the actors, but there is already a consensus on far more important fundamentals. But the Israelis did not lose the war because of orders given or not given to various officers. It was a war of choice, and it was planned as an air war with very limited ground incursions in the expectation that Israeli casualties would be very low. Major General Herzl Sapir at the end of February said that "the war began at our initiative and we did not take advantage of the benefits granted to the initiator." Planning for the war began November 2005 but reached high gear by the following March before the expected kidnapping of two IDF soldiers – the nominal excuse for the war. There is no controversy over the fact that it was a digitized, networked war, the first in Israel’s experience, and conformed to Halutz’ – and American – theories of how war is fought in this high-tech era. The US fought identical wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and is in the process of losing both.

What were the Israeli objectives? – war aims, if you will. While the Winograd Commission report may clarify this question, at the very least a number of goals are known already. Halutz wanted to "shock and awe" the Hezbollah and their allies with Israeli power – all within a few days. There were lesser aims, such as moving the Hezbollah rockets well away from the borders or even getting its two kidnapped soldiers returned, but at the very least Halutz wanted to make a critical point.

Instead, he revealed Israel’s vulnerability based, in large part, on the fact the enemy was far better prepared, motivated, and equipped. It was the end of a crucial myth, the harbinger of yet more bloody, but equal, armed conflicts or a balance of power conducive to negotiations. Olmert and his generals very likely expected to have a great victory within five days, thereby increasing his popularity with the hawkish Jewish population that is a growing majority of the voters, to reverse his abysmally low poll ratings, thereby saving his political career – he received three percent popularity in a TV poll in early March.

There are many reasons the Israelis lost the war in Lebanon, but there is general agreement within Israel that the war ended in disaster and the deterrent value of the once unbeatable, super-armed IDF gravely diminished in the entire Arab world for the first time since 1947. But the Israelis were defeated for many of the same reasons that have caused the Americans to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and in Vietnam as well. Both their doctrine and equipment were ill suited for the realities they confronted. There was no centralized command structure to destroy but small groups, lightly armed, mobile, and decentralized, able to harass and ultimately prevail. The Hezbollah also had highly effective Russian anti-tank missiles, and the IDF admits that "several dozen" tanks were put out of commission, if not destroyed, including the Merkava Mark IV, which Israel claims in the best protected tank in the world – and which it seeks to export. They also fired around 4,000 rockets at Israeli population centers and the IDF could not stop this demoralizing harassment. Hezbollah bunkers and arsenals were largely immune to air attacks, which caused the Israelis to "stretch the target envelope" to attack densely populated areas, with over 1,000 civilian dead. "Israel lost the war in the first three days," an American military expert concluded, expressing a consensus shared by many US Air Force analysts. "If you have that kind of surprise and you have that kind of firepower you had better win. Otherwise, you’re in for the long haul."

The problem, though, was not merely a new Arab prowess, though changes in their morale and fighting organizations should not be minimized. Halutz’ drastic reorganization of the IDF since early 2005, one that was supposed to attain the promises of all its American-supplied equipment, "caused," in General Sapir’s words, "a terrible distortion." The IDF was an organizational mess, demoralized as never before, and on January 17, 2007 Halutz resigned, the first head of the IDF to voluntarily step down because of his leadership in war. Had he not resigned he would have been fired. His successor quickly annulled his reorganization of the IDF, which is now sorely disorganized. The American way of warfare had failed.

The Next War

The Lebanon War is only a harbinger of Israeli defeats to come. For the first time there is a rough equivalence in military power.

Technology everywhere is now moving far faster than the diplomatic and political resources or will to control its inevitable consequences. Hezbollah has far better and more rockets – over 10,000 short-range rockets is one figure given – than it had a few years ago, and Israel’s military intelligence believes it has more firepower than it had last spring, before it was attacked. Israel has failed to convince Russia not to sell or give their highly effective anti-tank missiles to nations or movements in the region. They fear that even Hamas will acquire them. Syria is procuring "thousands" of advanced anti-tank missiles from Russia, which can be fired from five kilometers away, as well as far better rockets that can hit Israeli cities.

If the challenges of producing a realistic concept of the world that confronts the mounting dangers and limits of military technology seriously are not resolved soon there is nothing more than wars to look forward to. The IDF intelligence branch does not think a war with Syria is likely in 2007; other Israeli military commentators think that any war with Syria would produce, at best, a bloody standoff – just like the war in Lebanon last summer. Israel has about 3,700 tanks and they are all now highly vulnerable. Its ultra-modern air arm, most of which the US has provided, only kills people but it cannot attain victory.

The New Israel – A 'Normal' Nation

In the past, wars produced victories and more territory for the Jews; now they will only produce disasters for everybody. The Lebanon War proved that.

Zionism was a concoction of Viennese coffee houses, Tolstoy’s idealization of labor, early ecological sentiment in the form of the wanderfogel that influenced Zionism but various fascistic movements as well, militarism, and varieties of socialism for parts of it, including bolshevism. Jews sought to go to Palestine not only because of the Holocaust but also the changes in American immigration laws in the first half of the 1920s. Without the vast sums the Diaspora provided, Zionism would never have come to fruition. Every nation has its distinctive personality reflecting its traditions, pretensions, and history’s caprices, and in this regard Israel is no different. It exists but it is becoming increasingly dangerous to world peace – and to itself.

Zionism always had a military ethos, imposed only in part by Arab hostility, and from the inception of Zionism’s history its political and military leaders were one and the same. Generals were heroes and they did well in politics. The logic of force merged with an essentially Western, colonialist bias. Its founders were Europeans, and it was an outpost of European culture until the globalization of values and products made these cultural distinctions increasingly irrelevant. It always has been a militarist society, proud of its fighters. And notwithstanding the Cold War and the increasing flow of arms from the US, which, merged with its élan, meant it won all its post-1947 wars until last summer, it still retains a strong element of hysteria about the world it faced. And it is often messianic – especially its politicians – because messianism is very much influential among a growing portion of the religious and traditional population.

Israel has ceased being "Zionist" in the original sense of that ideology. For the sake of ceremony it retains Zionism as a label, just as many actual or aspiring nations have various myths which justify their claims to a national identity. But it is a long way from the original premises, in large part because its war with its neighbors – especially the Arabs who live in its midst or nearby – made its military ethos dominant over everything else.

Israel today is well on its way to becoming a failed state. Were it not for the fact that this outpost of fewer than five million Jews is a critical factor of war and peace in a much larger and vital region it would not be important or at all unusual. But it is terribly confused and has a very mixed identity; the US has since the late 1960s protected it. World peace now depends on this place, its idiosyncrasies, personality, and growing contradictions.

Israel is a profoundly divided society and its politicians are venal cynics. Many nations – and surely the Palestinian leaders until Hamas, by default, took over – are no different. As Shlomo Ben-Ami, the former foreign minister, describes it, on one side there are economically disadvantaged Oriental Jews, Russian nationalists who were motivated above all by a desire to leave the USSR (an appreciable minority is not Jewish), and Orthodox Jews of every sort united only by their intense dislike of "assimilationists"; on the other hand we have secular Jews, some leftists and modernizers, more skilled and of East European parentage who were once crucial in the formation of Zionism. There are an increasing number of "Jerusalem-Jews," as Ben-Ami calls them, motivated to come primarily by economic incentives, and they are bringing the Right to power more and more often. They fear the Arabs who live in Israel. "Tel Aviv" Jews are assimilating to a global, modernizing culture, more akin to the "normal" existence the early Zionists preached, and they are also the emigrants out because they have high skills. Israel now has as many people leaving as immigrate to it, and North America alone is home to up to a million of them.

Some indications of these trends range from the banal to the tragic. There are all varieties of punks, gays, everything. As for the ultra-Orthodox, some have placed "curses" on those who advocate disengaging from any settlements in the West Bank or Gaza; they will be punished by heaven. One of four ultra-Orthodox Jews believes this is precisely why Sharon was struck with a coma. Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University and friend of many IDF leaders, whose fame was made studying the role of morale in armies, thinks the morale of the conscripts in the IDF is "almost to the vanishing point; in some cases crybabies have taken the place of soldiers." "Feminism" in the armed forces has intensified the rot, but "social developments" have destroyed much of the army – as have officers "who stayed behind their computers" last summer.

Never before has Israel been wracked by so many demoralizing scandals. The president of Israel just resigned because of rape charges against him, Prime Minister Olmert is being investigated by the comptroller’s office on four charges of corruption, the new chief of police was once accused of accepting bribes and fraud and his appointment has created an uproar, and other sordid cases too numerous to cite. Israel is "stewing in its own rot," a Haaretz writer concluded; the police, retired judge Vardi Zeiler commented after heading a committee to investigate the state’s operation, were like Sicily and the state was on its way to becoming a mafia-style regime.

In this anarchy wars are motivated for political reasons but now they are lost because the society is disintegrating and – again to quote a Haaretz writer – the government "lacks both direction and a conscience." Worse yet, its leaders are incredibly stupid and Olmert can only be compared to Bush in political intelligence. There is a consensus among Israeli strategists that the Iraq War was a disaster for Israel, a geopolitical gift to Iran that will leave Israel in ever-greater danger long after the Americans go home. "Israel has nothing to gain from a continued American presence in Iraq," the director of the Institute for National Security Studies of Tel Aviv University stated last January. The US ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq and created an overwhelming Iranian strategic domination. Its campaign for democracy has brought Hamas to power in Palestine. "It's a total misreading of reality," one Israeli expert is quoted when discussing America's role in the region. American policies have failed and Israel has given a carte blanche to a strategy that leaves it more isolated than ever.

Notwithstanding this consensus, on March 12th Olmert told the American Israel Public Affairs annual conference by video link "Those who are concerned for Israel’s security…should recognize the need for American success in Iraq and responsible exit." "Any outcome that will not help America’s strength…would…undercut America’s ability to deal effectively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime…." His foreign minister was even stronger. "Stay the hell out of it," a Haaretz writer concluded. No group is more antiwar than American Jews, Congress – in its own inept way – is trying to bring the war to an end, his own strategists think the Iraq War was a disaster – and Olmert endorses Bush’s folly.

The Syrian Option

It is in this context that the peace of the region will or will not evolve. Olmert will do what is best for his political position domestically, and retaining power will be his priority – no less than his predecessors and most politicians everywhere. It is not at all promising. But for technical, social, and morale reasons Israel will not win another war. At every level, it has become far weaker. It can inflict frightful damage on its enemies but it cannot change the fundamental balance of all forces that lead to victory.

Making peace with Syria would be a crucial first step for Israel, and although the Palestinian problem would remain it would nonetheless vastly improve Israel’s security – and disprove the Bush’s Administration’s contention until very recently that negotiations with Syria or Iran on any Middle East question involves conceding to evil. The Israeli press reported in great detail the secret 2004-05 Israel-Syria negotiations, which were very advanced and involved major Syrian concessions – especially on water and Syrian neutrality in a host of political controversies with the Palestinians and Iranians. It also reported that Washington followed these talks closely and that it – especially Cheney’s office – opposed bringing them to a successful conclusion. At the end of January many important members of Israel’s foreign policy establishment publicly urged reopening these talks.

Olmert dismissed Syria’s gestures categorically after they became public. "Don’t even think about it" was Secretary of State Rice’s view of a treaty when she saw Israeli officials in mid-February. But though Mossad supports the obdurate Rice-Olmert view, military intelligence argues that Syria’s offers are sincere and serious. Moreover, intelligence’s head warned that Syria is growing stronger and peace was very much to Israel’s interest. He was supported by most of the Foreign and Defense ministries, including Minister of Defense Amir Peretz. Olmert demanded, and got, their acquiescence.

A treaty could be finalized with Syria within four to six months, Alon Liel, former director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry who negotiated with the Syrians, reported the Washington Times on March 7. Liel was asked to come to the US embassy in Tel Aviv about this time and tell the entire political staff of his talks. The reports in Haaretz, which included the draft treaty, were by then quite definitive. Then the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, invited Ibrahim Suleiman, Syria’s representative to the talks, to speak to the foreign affairs and defense committees. Such invitations are very rare, not least because Syria and Israel are legally in a state of war. But if the Syrians and Israelis go to war again, the normally hawkish Martin van Creveld concluded at this time, Israel "could wreak much destruction, but it could not force a decision." In three or four years the Syrians would be ready for a protracted war that would prove too much for Israel. After running through his bizarre alternatives, and the state of the IDF’s morale, van Creveld concluded that reaching a peace with Syria was very much to Israel’s interests – and that even the Americans were coming to the position that talking to Syria and Iran (as the Baker-Hamilton panel had recommended last December) was rational.

Syria has been attempting desperately to improve its relations with Washington, if only to forestall some mad act on the US’ part. When Israel attacked Lebanon last July, Elliott Abrams, in charge of the Middle East at the National Security Council, along with other neocons in Washington, urged it to expand the war to Syria. At the end of February Syria renewed its appeal to the US to discuss any and all Middle East issues with it in "a serious and profound dialogue." For over two years it has made similar attempts; Baker knew all about these. Talking to alleged adversaries is perhaps the most fundamental point of difference between Cheney, his neocon alliance, and Rice, and it covers North Korea, Iran, and many other places. The debate is less the nature and goals of American foreign policy but how to conduct it – by the application of material power and even the threat of war versus more traditional means, such as diplomacy.

In the past several weeks, taking her cue from the Republican Establishment in the Iraq Study Group last December, Rice has been winning points in this debate but her successes are fragile. Cheney is a powerful, determined and cunning man who knows how to succeed all too well with the president.

America’s overwhelming problem is Iraq and, above all, Iran, and apparently the Bush Administration has now decided that Syria can help it in the region. Ellen Sauerbrey, an Assistant Secretary of State, was in Damascus on March 12, nominally to discuss refugees but she heard from the Syrians "that all the questions are linked in the Arab region and that a comprehensive dialogue is needed on all these questions." Syria has also mobilized the European Union, which now favors a return of the Golan Heights to it. On March 13 the US ambassador to Israel publicly stated a bald lie that the Americans had never "expressed an opinion on what Israel should or should not do with regard to Syria."

It is now entirely in the hands of the Olmert government whether to negotiate with Syria.

Israel has ignored Washington on at least four very important issues, starting with the Sinai campaign in 1956, and acted in its own self-interest. The Americans were Olmert’s alibi but he can use them no more. There are other crucial issues, such as the Saudi plan for the resolution of the Palestine question, and never has Israel had a greater need for peace than at the present. Instead, like the US, its head of state may be the worst in its history, motivated by short-term political advantage and a consummate desire to retain power.

But the Syrian option is there for the taking. If there is war then the brain drain out will accelerate and migration in will fall; demography will take over. Israel will then become the only place in the world a Jew is in danger precisely because he or she is a Jew. If this opportunity is lost there will eventually be a mutually destructive war that no one will win – the Lebanon War proved that Israel must now confront the fact that its neighbors are becoming its military equals and US aid cannot save it.

Indeed, America’s free gifts enabled Israel to begin a war last July with illusions identical to those that also caused the Bush Administration to embark on its Iraq folly.

Going for Broke

January 29, 2007 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative

Endorsing the Baker report would have meant denouncing his entire foreign policy, so Bush is betting everything on the neocons’ surge.

by Andrew J. Bacevich

Nothing so clearly reveals the impoverished state of American political discourse as the ongoing debate over finding “a way forward” in Iraq. Broadly speaking, that debate pits a resurgent foreign-policy establishment, led by James Baker, against embattled neoconservatives, with Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute their improbable champion. On the surface, Baker and Kagan represent irreconcilable views. Beneath the surface, they are engaged in a common enterprise: deflecting attention from the contradictions that beset U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Baker, the trusted Bush family factotum, resurfaced most recently as co-chair, along with former Congressman Lee Hamilton, of the Iraq Study Group. Almost without fail, media references to the Baker-Hamilton commission emphasize its bipartisan composition as if that alone were enough to win a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Yet to imagine that bipartisanship signifies wisdom or reflects a concern for the common good is to misunderstand the reality of present-day politics. The true purpose of bipartisanship is to protect the interests of the Washington Party, the conglomeration of politicians, hustlers, and bureaucrats who benefit from the concentration of wealth and power in the federal city. A “bipartisan” solution to any problem is one that produces marginal change while preserving or restoring the underlying status quo.

In this regard, the Baker-Hamilton report, issued as signs of impending failure in Iraq were becoming incontrovertible, was intended to do two things. Most obviously, it offered George W. Bush political cover to begin extricating the United States from Iraq. Yet that offer came at a price: by endorsing the ISG package of 79 recommendations—Baker pointedly warned against treating them as a “fruit salad”—the president would effectively repudiate his entire post-9/11 approach to foreign policy. To embrace the ISG’s findings meant renouncing unilateralism, engaging adversaries rather than castigating them as “evil,” and valuing stability over the promulgation of any Freedom Agenda. In effect, it meant steering the United States back toward the course that Secretary of State Baker had charted when working for Daddy Bush. After a lost weekend spent binging on the intoxicating liquor of Wilsonianism, the president would return to the path of sobriety.

Neoconservatives instantly grasped the nature of the threat: the issue at hand was not simply Iraq. Neocons have long loathed Baker as an unprincipled wheeler-dealer (and barely closeted anti-Semite). Now here was their nemesis leading the Old Guard in an assault on their most cherished convictions. If Bush took the bait—if he chose to cut his losses in Iraq—the effect would be to discredit their entire approach to foreign policy. Neoconservative hopes of “transforming” the Islamic world, banishing tyranny from the face of the earth, and securing permanent global dominion based on unquestioned military supremacy all would be dashed.

So neoconservatives launched a fierce—at times hysterical—counterattack. Among their several complaints, one in particular stood out: Baker and Hamilton based their conclusions on the assumption that victory in Iraq lay beyond reach. Neocon critics portrayed this as the ultimate heresy. Any admission of failure in Iraq was premature, they insisted. The war there had to be won, and it could be won.

Enter Frederick Kagan. A lesser light in the neoconservative constellation, Kagan had for months been flogging his own scheme for turning the tide in Iraq. From his perch at 17th and M Street, it all appeared quite simple: rather than looking for ways to turn the war over to the Iraqis, it was time for American commanders to get serious about winning. They needed to quash the insurgency and secure the population, thereby creating conditions for economic reconstruction and political “reconciliation.” Above all, winning meant sending more G.I.’s to Iraq and especially into Baghdad, which Kagan identified as the decisive battlefield.

Here was the neoconservative response to James Baker: the imperative of the moment was not to withdraw but to surge.

In a series of articles, op-eds, and interviews, Kagan argued his case with remarkable sangfroid. Writing in The Weekly Standard, he insisted that enlarging the U.S. troop commitment was “the only option likely to bring peace to Iraq.” It made no sense to consider any of the proposed alternatives: “All will fail.” Dismissing concerns of senior military officers that American forces were about tapped out, Kagan did his own arithmetic and found it “obvious that there are many more troops to send.” Kagan had equally little patience for complaints that units recently returned from the war zone needed time to refit before another tour. If it proved necessary to “send forces that are not as well trained as one would like,” then so be it, he wrote. Although the army chief of staff had recently gone on record worrying that his service might crack under the stress of repeated deployments, Kagan was having none of it: “The Army will not break with this proposal.” And if the Pentagon needed additional forces to sustain the surge, Kagan had a ready solution. In his AEI report “Choosing Victory,” he counseled President Bush to “issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this age.”

Only when it came to the dimensions of the surge did Kagan’s assurance slip. In early December 2006, he was insisting that 80,000 reinforcements were needed. As he refined his plan, that number shrunk. By year’s end he concluded that a mere 30,000 additional troops would suffice. Did this adjustment reflect Kagan’s perception that the task was becoming easier? Were conditions in Iraq somehow improving? Or was Kagan tacitly acknowledging that the Pentagon did not after all have “many more troops to send”? He offered no explanation.

What can we say of this proposal? Simply this: to imagine that 170,000 troops will accomplish what 140,000 troops failed to do in nearly four years or that marching a handful of additional combat brigades into the maw of Baghdad will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat qualifies as pure fantasy. Kagan’s “surge” is the first cousin to Kenneth Adelman’s more famous “cakewalk.” It is ideology dressed up as strategy. Marketed as the product of careful analysis, the surge should be seen for what it is: a naked gamble. Tacitly acknowledging the point, some proponents even refer to it as the “double down” option.

That in places like AEI and the editorial offices of The Weekly Standard Kagan himself has emerged as the man of the hour testifies to the depth of neoconservative desperation. Kagan’s insistence that his surge will do the trick postpones the neoconservative day of reckoning. Believe Kagan and you can avoid for at least a bit longer having to confront Iraq’s incontrovertible lessons: that preventive war doesn’t work, that American power has limits, that the world is not infinitely malleable, and that grasping for “benign global hegemony” is a self-defeating proposition.

Indeed, the very niggardliness of Kagan’s plan testifies to the core problem to which neoconservatives refuse to own up. Between their professed aspirations and the means at hand to pursue those aspirations there yawns a massive gap.

Consider this: at the equivalent moment in the Vietnam War—immediately following the 1968 Tet Offensive—those most obstinately in denial about the reality of that war concocted their own version of a surge strategy. At the urging of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Earle Wheeler, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, the senior U.S. field commander, floated a request to deploy an additional 206,000 G.I.’s to South Vietnam. Whatever else might be said of Westmoreland’s proposal (which President Lyndon Johnson immediately rejected), it possessed a certain demented grandeur. Even with over a half-million U.S. troops already in Vietnam, throwing in a couple hundred thousand more qualified as a surge in just about anyone’s book. By comparison, Kagan’s proposal looks positively puny. It looks puny because it is.

“The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq,” Kagan loftily explained in a recent Washington Post op-ed, “because of a history of half-measures.” Now, he would have us believe, is the time to pull out all the stops. But Kagan’s so-called surge really amounts to yet another half-measure. Other than forfeiting the lives of more American soldiers and adding to the billions already wasted in Iraq, it will accomplish little. As for Kagan’s expectation that a presidential summons to the colors will produce a stampede of fresh recruits, anyone who buys that will also believe in the tooth fairy.

So if Kagan got it wrong, does it follow that Baker got it right? The short answer is no, except perhaps in a tactical sense.

Viewed as an immediate response to a crisis fast slipping out of control, the various prescriptions offered by the Iraq Study Group do possess considerable merit. Although the damage done to American interests by this misguided war cannot be undone, there exists an urgent need to contain that damage, to stanch our losses, and to prevent the entire Persian Gulf from plunging into chaos. Considered in this context, Baker’s call for a phased withdrawal of combat troops, his insistence on establishing milestones to spur improvements in the Iraqi government’s performance, and his proposed diplomatic initiative aimed at fostering regional support for stabilizing Iraq all make sense. Reinvigorating the so-called peace process, another Baker recommendation, also deserves consideration, not in the vain hope of producing peace, but to counter the (largely accurate) perception that the U.S. government has never really cared about the plight of the Palestinian people.

As a prescription for strategy, however, the Baker-Hamilton report flunks for the most fundamental of reasons: it neglects the little matter of how the United States got into this fix in the first place. As they went about their work, the one subject that members of the Iraq Study Group stubbornly avoided was the past.

This convenient amnesia allowed the ISG to overlook a record of bipartisan bungling and shortsightedness extending over a period of decades. Franklin D. Roosevelt got the ball rolling in 1945, promising protection to the House of Saud in exchange for preferred access to Saudi oil. Dwight D. Eisenhower made his own distinctive contribution, engineering a coup in Tehran and forging a fateful partnership with the Shah. John F. Kennedy chipped in with another CIA-assisted coup, this one bringing the Ba’ath Party to power in Baghdad. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon affirmed the Iranian connection and added another, establishing a costly “special relationship” with Israel. When revolutionaries tossed the Shah out on his ear, Jimmy Carter upped the ante: under the terms of the Carter Doctrine, the United States vowed henceforth to use any means necessary to secure its interests in the Gulf.

From this point, the pace of events quickened. U.S. commitments multiplied. Costs skyrocketed. American leverage waned. That U.S. policy yielded benefits for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, and large multinational oil companies seemed clear enough. That it was serving the long-term interests of the American people was becoming far less clear.

Celebrated by neoconservatives as a man of vision and principle, Ronald Reagan manifested neither of these qualities when it came to the Middle East. In Lebanon, he flung away the lives of 241 U.S. troops to no purpose except perhaps to raise questions about American will. After establishing a tacit anti-Iranian alliance with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Reagan okayed a hare-brained scheme to funnel U.S. weapons to Tehran. Iran-Contra became Reagan’s trifecta: a policy that was simultaneously stupid, illegal, and an embarrassing failure. Meanwhile, just off-stage in the Petri dish of Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, Reagan’s policies inadvertently served to cultivate the bacillus of Islamic radicalism.

Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, assisted by then Secretary of State James Baker, took the final plunge. With his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Saddam Hussein outlived his usefulness to the United States. Operation Desert Storm, Bush’s attempt to remove the Iraqi dictator from the scene, came up short. Not for the last time an ostensibly historic victory over Iraq left in its wake a problematic legacy. Policing the Gulf now became a full-time job. To keep Saddam in his box and the mullahs at bay, Bush scattered a network of quasi-permanent military garrisons across the region. Bill Clinton inherited this mare’s nest and then proceeded to fritter away eight years bombing Iraq to little effect and absorbing terrorist attacks on American forces and installations.

This dispiriting narrative—from FDR’s encounter with Ibn Saud on the Great Bitter Lake to the near-sinking of the USS Cole at Aden 55 years later—left a peculiar imprint on members of the Washington Party. The blowback from ill-advised policies served to whet their appetite for more of the same.

By the time George W. Bush became president, Republicans and Democrats alike subscribed to a common set of dubious assumptions: that the Persian Gulf represents a vital strategic interest, permanent and inescapable; that Gulf nations are incapable of managing their own affairs; that the United States, therefore, has no alternative but to determine the fate of this region; that American power and prestige, guided by distinguished statesmen in the mold of James Baker and Lee Hamilton, will suffice to do just that; that peace and prosperity for all lie just around the corner, if only Americans will persist a bit longer.

Here lies the ultimate purpose of the Iraq Study Group: to shield these assumptions from critical scrutiny. Perpetuating the Great Game of the modern Middle East ensures that the flow of oil, arms, and contracts continues without interruption. As long as the Game goes on, it provides a rationale for the endless comings-and-goings of important personages engaged in “the search for peace.” Think tanks churn out policy papers by the score. Lobbying firms prosper. Guests on Sunday morning talk shows prattle on about the latest crisis. Recruited to serve on blue-ribbon commissions, high governmental officials from yesteryear relive their glory days. The Game is its own reward. For members of the Washington Party, its preservation qualifies as a categorical imperative.

When it comes to U.S. policy in the Middle East, neither the cavalier urgings of Frederick Kagan nor the confident reassurances of James Baker will provide the basis for defining a “way forward.” Despite superficial differences, their prescriptions point in the same direction: they will simply exacerbate our predicament. Further militarizing U.S. policy, always the first choice of neoconservatives, will only compound our dilemma; yet so too will deference to self-appointed Wise Men, who created that dilemma in the first place.

Neoconservatives like Kagan believe that the United States is called upon to remake the Middle East, bringing the light of freedom to a dark quarter of the world. Pseudo-realists like Baker believe that the United States can manipulate events in the Middle East, persuading others to do our bidding. Both views, rooted in the conviction that Providence has endowed America with a unique capacity to manage history, are pernicious.

The way forward requires abandoning that conviction in favor of a fundamentally different course. A sound Middle East strategy will restore American freedom of action by ending our dependence on Persian Gulf oil. It will husband our power by using American soldiers to defend America rather than searching abroad for dragons to destroy. A sound strategy will tend first to the cultivation of our own garden.

A real course change will require a different compass, different navigational charts, and perhaps above all different helmsmen, admitting into the debate those who earn their livelihoods far from the imperial city on the Potomac. A foreign policy worthy of the name will reflect the concerns and aspirations of ordinary Americans. It’s that last prospect that Frederick Kagan and James Baker most fear.
________________________________________

Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, is a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

Bush Bamboozles Democrats Again

consortiumnews.com

By Robert Parry
January 27, 2007

As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates joins in baiting Iraq War critics for supposedly aiding the enemy, the Democrats have been taught once more the value of handing a bipartisan olive branch to George W. Bush.

In December 2006, ignoring warnings from former CIA officers who had worked with Gates, Senate Democrats embraced his nomination to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They fawned over Gates at a one-day hearing, spared the former CIA director any tough questions, and then unanimously endorsed him.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and others hailed Gates’s “candor” when he acknowledged the obvious, that the United States wasn’t winning the war in Iraq, a position that even Bush subsequently embraced.

In December, the “conventional wisdom” was that Bush would bend to the troop-drawdown recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and that Gates – as a former member of the ISG – would guide the President toward disengagement from Iraq.

But in rushing Gates’s nomination through with only pro forma hearings, the Democrats sacrificed a rare opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about its war policy at a time when the White House wanted something from the Democrats, i.e. the quick confirmation of Gates.

At minimum, the Democrats could have used an extended confirmation hearing to explore, in detail, Gates’s views about the military challenges in the Middle East and ascertain what he knew about Bush’s future plans.

They also could have taken time to examine exactly who Gates is, whether he is the right man to oversee the complex conflicts in the Middle East, and what his real record was in handling regional issues in the past.

Gates allegedly played important but still-secret roles in controversial U.S. policies toward Iran and Iraq in the 1980s. In addition, former CIA officers have criticized Gates for “politicizing” the CIA’s intelligence analysis as a top CIA official in the 1980s.

Some of the CIA institutional and personnel changes that Gates implemented led to the CIA’s malleability in the face of White House pressure over Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction in 2002-03, former CIA officials said. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Secret World of Robert Gates."]

So, was Gates a closet neoconservative ideologue hiding behind Boy Scout looks and mild manners? Or was he more a yes man who would bend to the will of his superiors? His record could be interpreted either way. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Robert Gates: Realist or Neo-con?"]

But the Democrats politely evaded these thorny questions.

Rumsfeld’s Lament

The Senate Armed Services Committee also could have called Rumsfeld to explain his Nov. 6 memo which contained recommendations for U.S. troop redeployments similar to those suggested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania. Two days after that memo was sent to Bush, the President fired Rumsfeld and replaced him with Gates.

The Democrats could have demanded that Rumsfeld explain what had led to his change in thinking and whether his “going wobbly” was the precipitating fact in his firing. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Gates Hearing Has New Urgency."]

By extending the hearings a few days, they also could have asked Rumsfeld and Gates about the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations.

Under White House pressure, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, scheduled Gates’s one-day hearing the day before former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton released the ISG’s report listing 79 recommendations to address the "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.

Though then still in the Senate minority, committee Democrats had the power to demand fuller hearings. But they were desperate to demonstrate their bipartisanship and their generosity in victory, extending Bush an olive branch and hoping that Bush would respond in kind.

Immediately after the perfunctory hearing, Gates got unanimous approval from the Armed Services Committee and the next day won confirmation from the full Senate. He was opposed by only two right-wing Republican senators.

In the seven weeks since then, it’s become clear that Bush bamboozled the Democrats again. The “conventional wisdom” of early December turned out to be all wrong.

Bush dashed the Democrats’ hopes for a bipartisan strategy on Iraq by unceremoniously junking the Baker-Hamilton recommendations.

Instead of moving to drawdown U.S. forces, he chose to escalate by adding more than 20,000 new troops. Instead of negotiating with Iran and Syria as the ISG wanted, Bush sent aircraft carrier strike groups to the region and authorized the killing of Iranian agents inside Iraq.

Instead of building on the bipartisan approach of the Iraq Study Group, Bush pronounced himself the “decision-maker” and signaled his surrogates to step up accusations that the Democrats were aiding and abetting the terrorists.

Gates’s Thanks

For his part, Gates has shown his thanks to the Democrats for his cakewalk confirmation by speeding up deployment of the new troops even as Democrats struggle to fashion a non-binding resolution opposing the escalation.

Gates also picked up Bush’s favorite cudgel to pound the Democrats for supposedly helping the enemy.

“Any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon on Jan. 26. “I’m sure that that’s not the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect.”

Now, as Bush rushes more troops to Iraq, the Democrats are left to debate whether the non-binding resolution on the “surge” should refer to it as an “escalation” or, as some Republicans would prefer, an “augmentation.”

Though vowing stronger action in the future, many Democrats already have ruled out blocking new funds for the war because that would open them to more accusations of disloyalty. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment “off the table,” too.

So, the Democrats are again learning a hard lesson they should have mastered years ago, that this breed of Republicans views Democrats as suckers who can be easily seduced with a few sweet but empty words like “bipartisanship” and “comity.”

In December, the Democrats voluntarily sacrificed a golden opportunity to use the Gates nomination to force an examination of Bush’s war strategy. At that moment, they held real leverage over the administration to get documents and other needed information.

Instead, they engaged in wishful thinking, opted to be nice and are now finding what their gestures of bipartisanship got them.

[To see Consortiumnews.com's new archive on Gates-related articles, click here.]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. To comment to us by e-mail, click here.

Texan Poker Bluff and Persian Chess Moves

Jan 22, 2006

By K Gajendra Singh


"The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis - and to a decline of the United States' role and influence." Mikhail Gorbachev.

"The president is living in a dream world,'' US Sen. Barbara Boxer.


On Iran , US Administration has reached the pre-Iraq invasion rhetoric level of 2003 , when against the UN Charter and world opinion ,President George Bush decided to invade Iraq after having assembled a naval armada and air and land forces in the region ,cheerlead by a subservient US media . Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are accusing Tehran of developing nuclear weapons and exporting terrorism, just as Saddam Hussein was allegedly doing. Iran is also not abiding by U N resolutions on its nuclear weapons program, which, like Iraq then, it denies it has. UN Nuclear Agency in Vienna has found no proof of a weapons program .Neither there was one in Iraq in 2003. Almost all accusations made by US President , his deputy and others , exaggerated by US corporate owned media proved to be false.

But after 4 years of blunders and stupidity , the situation is unlike March, 2003 , with an isolated Bush administration now under siege having become unpopular and discredited at home and with allies abroad .In Iran it faces a people with a long history of survival beginning with Alexander and his uncouth Macedonian hordes , Arabs ,Turks , Mongols and others. And they succeeded in civilizing most of them.

Even the new Chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee , John D. Rockefeller (D) took umbrage at the Bush administration's increasingly hostile barrage against Iran .The efforts to portray it as a growing threat were uncomfortably reminiscent of the rhetoric about Iraq. "To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again," Senator Rockefeller said in an interview on 19 January. "This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre." "I don't think that policymakers in this administration particularly understand Iran," he added. Rockefeller, a moderate , with good access to most classified intelligence about the threat from Tehran felt that US agencies still knew little about either Iran's internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East.

On how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism since 119 attacks, Rockefeller believed that the campaign against international terrorism was "still a mystery" to the President. "I don't think he understands the world," he said. "I don't think he's particularly curious about the world. I don't think he reads like he says he does." He added, "Every time he's read something he tells you about it, I think."

Over Bush's policy of 'Surge ' ie sending additional 21,500 troops to Iraq ,hot words are being exchanged between Democrat party ,resurgent after Bush's Republican party debacle in November elections and the White House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats are backing a nonbinding Senate Democratic resolution declaring that "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the US military force presence in Iraq."

Pelosi warned that President Bush was wading too deeply into Iraq .It should not be "an obligation of the American people in perpetuity." She added that Bush "has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder." White House spokeswoman Dana Perino retorted that Pelosi's comments were "poisonous," stating that Bush feels that once additional troops reached Iraq and once they're in battle , the Congress won't cut off funds.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton , Democrat front runner for party's Presidential nomination during her recent visit to Baghdad met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. She felt that Bush's strategy had little chance of success. " The Iraqi government is not committed to taking the steps both militarily and politically that would help them to gain control over Baghdad and other places in the country," Clinton told NBC ."I do not think that this strategy has a very high level of success at all attached to it. In fact, I think that at best it's a holding pattern."But she supported " the beginning of a phased redeployment out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq completely." She backed placing an immediate cap on the number of US troops in the country, currently about 132, 000.

The arrival of new US reinforcements have met with increased attacks against occupation troops . On 20 January , at least 19 American troops were killed,athe deadliest day for US forces in two years, including 12 brought down in a helicopter crash claimed by the resistance and 5 in an attack by militia fighters in Shia holy city of Karbala A British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb and 4 other soldiers were wounded in the attack in Basra and south Iraq.

Bush raises the stakes;

It was the prospect of " hot pursuit" raids into Iran, raised by Bush last week, that fuelled fears that the Administration was preparing the public for attacks on Iran. Many analysts have been warning since 2004 against a planned US attack alone or in cahoots with Israel on Iran , one of the so called axis of evil , in the hoary Western tradition of demonizing those they want to invade , colonise and then loot.

US accusations of Tehran aiding militias and insurgents who attack US troops in Iraq , have been denied by Tehran. Yes, most of Iraq's Shia ruling elite and al-Badr militia were financed and trained by Iran when Saddam Hussein was a US darling in 1980s.Tehran also extended support to Kurds in north Iraq , whenever pressurized by the Saddam regime.

Having flouted most international rules, regulations , treaties and conventions since Bush was crowned by a judicial sleight of hand in 2000, tarnishing USA's electoral and legal credibility , Washington has now initiated clearly illegal and aggressive actions like the abduction of accredited Iranian personnel in Irbil in north Iraqi Kurdistan .Even the Kurdish leaders , beholden to Washington and thriving under US protection since the end of 1991 Gulf War ,have demurred and protested as have the Iraqi leaders and government 'elected' or selected by US Viceroys since the occupation.

Senior Iraqi Shia politicians , now in power, and beholden to Tehran since decades are now required to implement Bush's policy of 'Surge' ,by adding over 21,500 troops to help fight militias , provide security and reconstruction .They are naturally reluctant in striking against Shia militias and their leaders on whose support they survive , politically and militarily . In spite of public bon homie and some token measures .there are clear signs of a growing rift between the White House and the Iraqi leadership resident in Baghdad's Green Zone fortress , on policies at home or vis a vis Tehran.

A tour of the Middle East by the US Congress harassed Secretary of State Condi Rice , after her August trip last year when she described the destruction of civilian infrastructure and deaths in Lebanon by Israel as the birth pangs of a new Middle East ,evoked little enthusiasm or real support from USA's Sunni allies in the region , who are in panic over Tehran's expanding influence in the region , Muslim Ummah and the world .

After the Lebanese Hezbollah gave a bloody nose to Israel's famed commandos in July-August war last year ,its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both Shias were voted the most popular Muslim leaders even in the Sunni bastion of Egypt and elsewhere much to the discomfiture of regional Sunni leaders ,who had lambasted the Hezbollah after Tel Aviv used the abduction of its two soldiers to launch a full scale war it had prepared for . The continued ramification of Israeli defeat ended in the recent resignation of Israeli Military chief Lt.Gen Dan Halutz. "Since the end of the war we had been expecting Halutz to resign and [Defence Minister Amir] Peretz and [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert to follow him," gloated Sheikh Nasrallah .

Iraq's other neighbour; Turkey's position ;

There is little common ground on Iraq between USA and its NATO ally Turkey with a million armed men and a key regional player .Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a US TV channel last month that with the dead in sectarian violence having exceeded 650,000 ... it could only be explained as a civil war. He added that Iraq's neighbors have a huge stake in the Iraqi civil war not spreading outwards .In addition to Iran, Turkey, Syria and US having bilateral or trilateral meetings, there should be an international consensus that includes all neighboring countries and the U.N. Security Council.

As for the 'Surge ' in US troops, Erdogan felt that it was time for a phased reduction of US military presence in Iraq. Erdogan had earlier opposed dispatch of more US troops to Iraqi Kurdistan .He declared recently that if faraway US could ferry troops to Iraq then Ankara had the right to enter north Iraq too ,as the situation there impinged on Turkey directly and adversely.

Thousands of rebels from PKK (Turkish Workers Party ) are now sheltered in north Iraq .Since 1984 over 37,000 have been killed in the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey's South East. Ankara has some times laid claims on the north Iraq city of Kirkuk , floating on oil like Kuwait , where its kinsman the Turcomen have a sizable presence. This region was occupied by the British after the First World War ceasefire following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, of which the region was a province.

Policy differences between Washington and Iraqi leaders ;

The acrimonious exchanges between US Administration and Prime Minister, al-Maliki on implementation of Bush's policy of 'Surge " have become public . To counter US criticism of his failure to halt sectarian violence al Maliki said, "I wish that we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don't give some boost to the terrorists and make them feel that they might have achieved success." To Condi Rice's statement of his government living on "borrowed time", he responded tartly, "Secretary Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the government is on borrowed time, whether it is borrowed time for the Iraqi government or American administration."

Al Maliki claimed if Iraqi security forces were given sufficient training and equipment, which were denied , Iraq could be stabilized and allow US troops to begin withdrawing ."I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down." But "that's on the condition that there are real strong efforts to support our military forces." US officials are how ever worried that military equipment would end up in with the Shia militias ,which has happened.

Regarding action to eliminate all militias , al Maliki announced that 400 members ,including some commanders of the Mahdi Army loyal to the highly popular and powerful cleric Moqtada al-Sadr were arrested. One Mahdi commander told the AP , "Our top leadership has told us to lay low and not confront the Americans. But if Sadr City is attacked, if civilians are hurt, we will ignore those orders and take matters in our own hands. We won't need orders from Sheik Muqtada ."

Mahdi street fighters have been told not to wear their black uniforms and hide their weapons and make their checkpoints less visible. It appears that instructions are being obeyed. With the US plans a public secret, Moqtda also reshuffled the Mahdi Army command structure, transferring many leaders to new districts and firing others of suspected loyalty.

The six-member Moqtda al-Sadr bloc which boycotted the Iraqi Parliament would rejoin on 21 January , in spite of the arrest of Sheikh Abdel Hadi Al-Diraji, a close aide of Moqtda , who has ordered his men to avoid armed confrontation with the government. The Parliament boycott was enforced when Al Maliki met with Bush in Amman in spite of Moqtda's demand. Al Maliki depends on Moqtda for political and military support .The other Shia Dawa militia is under Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

In an interview out on 19 January in Rome 's La Republica ,Moqtada stated that he never trusted Prime Minister al-Maliki nor his predecessor Iyad Allawi. He accused them of being in cahoots with the US plans to destroy him and his militia. A crackdown on his movement "has already kicked off." "Last night they arrested over 400 of my people. But it is not us they want to destroy, it's Islam," he declared. Moqtda also denied that members of his militia have infiltrated the army and police. "The exact opposite has happened: it is our militia which is full of spies. It is actually very easy to infiltrate an army of the people." He also denied that those who chanted his name and insulted Saddam Hussein at his execution were his men. "Those were people paid to disparage me, to make me appear like the person responsible for the hanging," he declared .

Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a former Iraqi Prime Minister , when asked if an increase in US troops would be a threat to Iran, replied: "We don't want Iraq to pose a threat to any country. We also don't accept that any neighbouring country poses a threat to Iraq."

The Iraqi Government and the Mahdi Army could employ the tactics used by Washington's major non-NAO strategic ally in the war against terrorism, Pakistan and its all purpose powerful tool ,Inter-Services Intelligence agency ( ISI ). When pressed by Washington , Islamabad produces a few Al Qaeda operatives , mostly low level ,for Washington to garner some propaganda points . Five years on after 911 , the results of the war on terrorism are dismal , with most convinced it is but a charade , to keep US public frightened for Bush Administration to implement its partisan agenda .In return Pakistan has received billions worth of aid , mostly for defence, which has only strengthened the strangle hold of the military over civil society.

Iraq leaders criticise US action in Irbil;

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim of SCIRI , leader of the 130-member Shia bloc in the Parliament and thus one of Iraq's most powerful politicians and who was hosted at the White House in early December criticised the US action in Irbil .He described the detention of the Iranians an attack on Iraq's sovereignty. "Regardless of the Iranian position, we consider these actions as incorrect," Hakim, told the BBC. "They represent a kind of attack on Iraq's sovereignty, and we hope such things are not repeated."

In a statement Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, expressed "disturbance and condemnation" of the predawn operation and urged the US military to release the arrested. Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, also a Kurd , said that Iraq needed good relations with Iran. "We can't change the geographical reality that Iran is our neighbour. This is a delicate balance and we are treading a very thin line," he said. "We fully respect the views, policies and strategy of the United States, which is Iraq's strongest ally , but the Iraqi government has national interests of its own."

US Iran hostilities would disrupt peace in the region and the growing affluence of Kurdish war lords . In that case Turkey might even intervene. To calm the situation President Talbani , who has been to Ankara a few times , went to Damascus , first such visit in 3 decades by an Iraqi Head of State . Of course he visited Damascus many times during the Saddam era .Post 2003 invasion, Of course Iraq's Shia leadership, with long close relations with Iran have visited Tehran many times. Even convicted embezzler but Minister ,exile Ahmet Celebi, once a blue eyed boy of the Pentagon .

Iranians have played it cool and not made such a big issue of the raid .Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Husseini condemned the raid. "The activity of all those people at our office in Irbil was legal and was in cooperation with and had the approval of the Iraqi side," Husseini told Iran's state-owned Arabic language satellite channel Al-Alam.

In ratcheting up tensions beyond threats, Washington might try to implement the so called 'Khuzestan gambit' i.e. creating dissentions and even intervening across south Iraq in Iran's major oil producing region of Khuzestan , of ancient Elam and Cyrus's Persian empire's capital Susa. Now it is sparsely populated by preponderantly Arab Shias. During the 1980-99 Iraq-Iran war , Shia Arabs on the two sides of the border had fought loyally for their countries .

When the Shias in Basra were quiet watching disenfranchised Sunni elite take on the US troops and harm each other , British James Bonds were active across in Khuzestan .But Iraqi Shia militias would take on all occupation troops if Iran or themselves are attacked. A large majority of Shia population and leadership is now strongly opposed to the occupation. So the un-nerved British forces fled from Basra city to the airport and safe desert bases for easier Dunkirk like run for home, when necessary.

The British had even suggested that they would like to shift their troops to a more important mission in South Afghanistan , where along with reluctant NATO it is now confronted by a resurgent Taleban. With Pakistan having lost over 800 troops in its North West Frontier Province and forced into a peace agreement with the Taleban , attacks against NATO forces in Afghanistan have increased .

Muhammad Hanif, a Taliban spokesman captured by British and Afghan troops near the border with Pakistan, on being grilled, confessed that the Taleban Emir Mullah Omar lives in Quetta in Pakistan. "He is protected by ISI," Hanif said. Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, made similar allegations in the past .But Aftab Ahmad Sherpao, Pakistan's Interior Minister denied the reports, "We have no information on the whereabouts of Mullah Omar. He is not living in Pakistan."

Following the old European and now US policy of divide and rule ,Washington is successfully igniting dissensions and perhaps succeeding in arousing the dormant historic hatred between Arab Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, who are now savagely killing each other , more so since the US reported that Al Qaeda damaged the Shia Golden Dome mosque in Samarrah early last year . US cracked the first Shia-Sunni fault line in Iraqi nationalism when then President George Bush Senior asked Shias and Kurds of Iraq to rise against Saddam Hussein at the end of 1991 Gulf War .And then did nothing when Saddam Hussein regime attacked by the rebels suppressed the uprising brutally . That would not inspire Shia trust in US words .The illegal trial and lynching of Saddam Hussein under US direction, control and occupation has deepened this sectarian chasm further.

Robert Gates- A strong and a long time US presence in Middle East;

It was quite apparent that the Iraq Study Group Report was just another red herring to mollify a disenchanted US public and keep the new Congress diverted .USA would not walk away from the region .Listen to what a major contributor to ISG report, the newly minted Defence Secretary Robert Gates said about the buildup of US forces in the region, involving the dispatch of an aircraft carrier and Patriot missile defence batteries , apart from US troops.

"We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future," said Gates on the first arrival of reinforcements in Baghdad as part of Bush's "surge" strategy. The US military buildup is intended to signal American determination to remain a dominant player in the region.

"The Iranians clearly believe we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in a position to press us in many ways," Gates told journalists in Brussels. "They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point." He added that Tehran was seeking to foment conflict in Lebanon through Hezbollah.

But Gates did not rule out the possibility of talks in the future if Iran changed its behaviour. "When the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems there might be opportunities for engagement," he said.

Bush 'Stays the Course' - in aggressive mode;

When asked if the alleged killing of Americans by Iranian agents in Iraq constituted an act of war , Bush said he was not a lawyer so could not define what constituted an act of war but "let me just say it's unacceptable". He warned if the US failed in Iraq it would lead to a wider regional crisis, "If the [Iraq] government falls apart and there is sectarian enclaves and violence it'll invite Iran into the Shia neighbourhoods."

On June 21, 2005, General John R Vines, then a senior US commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from Saddam's battle hardened army. US media and the British keep on claiming Iranian hand in supplying and helping Iraqi militias, even to the Sunni resistance.

Baltimore Times reported that at the current spending rate on the Iraq War, being waged along with the fighting in Afghanistan, the cost of the Iraq invasion will reach $600 billion this year. Much of the funding for the war comes from outside the normal budgetary process , through emergency appropriation bills.

US Congress rallies against 'Surge';

The policy of the 'Surge 'was concocted to counter ISG Report by Neo-Cons of American Enterprise Institute and former Lt Gen Keane . But Democrat Congressman John Murtha, a former decorated Marine and vocal opponent of the Iraq war and the incoming chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee said, "If we have our way there will be substantial change and substantial pressure put on this administration… The allies don't want us over there. The Iraqis don't want us over there and we expect that even the Republicans will support us when we get our bill up."fghanistan, Gates, Middle East,

He then added ominously, (we want a) "redeployment of troops out of Iraq" and (we will) "restrict funding until some of the problems are fixed at home." [ redeployment to new massive bases in Iraq which can house up to 70,000 soldiers !]

Murtha clarified, " You know they say that Al Qaeda is causing the divisions and sectarian violence? The invasion itself is what causes the sectarian violence –It's the occupation causes the violence. That's the problem we have and we have to change directions."

Murtha had raised the alarm in 2005 that the US army had done what it could do in Iraq .It was now broken. It was followed by the Generals revolt , when 8 senior retired generals went against Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and blamed him for defective Iraq war planning and its implementation. The two top Generals, Arabic knowing Gen. John Abizaid ( of Lebanese extraction ) Head of Centcom and Gen George Casey the man on the ground in Iraq who expressed themselves against increased US troops , are being eased out. Along with the naval build up in the Gulf , a Naval Admiral is being appointed apparently to carry out operations against Iran .

But the opposition to the war has seeped even into the ranks of the US forces . Some 1,000 active-duty soldiers and Marines urged US lawmakers to support a quick withdrawal. Although they're duty-bound to carry out the President's orders, they can legally express their views. The statement, carried on the Web site AppealforRedress.org, was signed by 1,080 troops by 16 January.

It urged the US Congress to support "the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq," adding, "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price." "Despite our best efforts, Iraq fell further into chaos," said Marine Corps Sgt. Liam Madden at a press conference .He believed that the war "benefits neither the United States nor Iraq, and especially not the American military".

Senate leaders have introduced a non-binding bipartisan resolution opposing the 'surge' policy .It has been drafted by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M.Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) "The whole thing could let Republicans off the hook with a meaningless, toothless vote," said Andrews, who has been meeting with senior Democrats on war issues. "It's a pressure valve that could work against us."

A Pew Research Center poll released on 16 January showed that 61 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq. Some 60 percent of Republicans support Bush's plan and 33 percent oppose it. Among Democrats, 12 percent support it and 82 percent oppose it.

The media is owned and manipulated by corporate interests who fund elections and employ lobbies with a US$ 2.4 billion treasure chest to get favourable laws enacted. Thus the interests of the poor and the middle classes remain neglected .But even the misinformed and info-challenged US electorate has deciphered the truth in Iraq and in November elections bashed up the Republican party . Only an election deters these , some not so, honourable legislators , afraid of losing the power and the pelf they enjoy . Republicans slated for next elections are opposing the 'surge '.Hillary Clinton , who has announced her bid for the Presidency , a fervid supporter of Israel and a strong supporter of US war on Iraq is now singing a different tune .There would be lot of political maneuverings but US would not easily give up its addiction to cheap Middle East oil and enormous profits for the energy interests and the military industry complex , which promotes wars .They rule the roost in the USA.

Retired US Generals recommend political solution in the Senate ;

A panel of retired generals told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 18 January that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq would do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country. "Too little and too late," said Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command. He added that American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. "The solution is political, not military," he said. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War, described it as "A fool's errand." Other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, and "our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer." He said that Iraqis should try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.

"The United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein," said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. The war benefited Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States. "There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests," he said. USA is in a 'No Win' situation. Even a plan to start withdrawing US troops carried the risk of the armed Iraqi population to step up the level of attacks. "We will be shot at as we are going out." said Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army.

Iran's counter moves ;

After the ISG recommendation that US talk with Syria and Iran , Tehran was somewhat euphoric and so was Damascus. But that is now gone and Tehran is pondering over its moves carefully to counter political and military moves by Washington. Ali Larijani, Iran's chief negotiator on the nuclear question delivered a joint letter to the Saudi King Abdullah from the Iranian Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad requesting Saudi mediation with the US. The letter was delivered just before Rice's visit to Riyadh. Reuters quoted an unnamed Saudi official saying Iran wanted the Saudi King to relay a goodwill message to Washington to "help bring opinions together" between Iran and the US.

Ever green Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani , a former President who lost to Ahmadinejad said that the US having failed to achieve its goals in the region, was now seeking to embark on a new adventure to cover up its defeat. He urged the need for vigilance.

To temper President Ahmadinejad's over blown rhetoric and consequent popularity with the public, but bad press in the West , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has allowed 150 parliamentarians to attack the President's economic policies. In a signed letter they blamed Ahmadinejad for the raging inflation , high unemployment and failure to even present the budget in time. They decried his going on a tour of Latin America at the time of a crisis. Western media hopefully suggested that the mounting criticism could mean Ahmadinejad's political doom and even impeachment. But on return from Latin America Ahmadinejad reiterated that Tehran's program on nuclear energy would continue.

Like (the Chess King) Ali Khamenei might remove from the centre (Knight ) Ahmadinejad with his awkward moves. Iranians have shown Chess like long term planning and finesse to counter US moves in the region , even offering full cooperation in 2003 ( an honourable draw ) , if US normalized bilateral relations disrupted since 1979 . Always many moves ahead they nurtured SCIRI , Dawa and other Iraqi groups and Kurds .Since the invasion of Iraq , they now occupy and control the centre (as in Chess board) , with open and hidden threats to any US moves .

In Bishop like pincer moves across the region, Tehran has smartly moved with Hamas after its electoral victory in Palestine ,taking it under its wings , with its top political leader Khaled Meshaal resident in Damascus . If Iraq President Talabani is visiting Damascus , so is Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to meet with President Bashar Assad but meeting with Meshaal did not materialize as no agreement could be reached on a unity government in Palestine . Perhaps both visitors have US acquiescence if not approval .They must also plan if US commitment in the region weakens or dwindles away.

Ahmed Yusuf, an adviser to Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, said Hamas ministers had received promises of donations amounting to £500m during recent visits in the Muslim world. But the largest pledge was from Iran, more than that of EU. Last year Tehran pledged £125 m to help Hamas survive the international boycott led by USA. After inroads in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon , Tehran's support to Hamas has created serious concern in US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states- at Iran's rapid expansion as a regional power.

Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel's secret service, Shin Bet, warned that international sanctions against the authority were forcing Hamas into a closer relationship with Iran. President Bush has asked Congress to approve $83 million for Abbas 's security forces. Israeli officials transferred $100 million in withheld revenues 9 collected as Tax and Customs dues to the Authority.

Palestine has become an arena of Shia Iran and Sunni Arab rivalry. Apart from Fathah and other cadres ,Abbas is raising a 3,500-strong Presidential Guard, as a bulwark against Hamas' militia of 5,000 gunmen. .If Iran is supplying funds and arms to Hamas then Egypt, Jordan , Saudi Arabia and USA are arming the now discredited and corrupt Palestine Authority .Hamas and Fathah militants are killing each other apart from the Israeli forces genocidal ways in Gaza in another example of divide and rule.

Apparently Hezbollah had abducted two Israeli soldiers last July to also ease intense Israeli pressure off Hamas in Gaza .Of course it did not expect a full blown savage destructive war by Israel as Nasrallah himself later admitted. But it turned out well for them and has altered the strategic power landscape in Lebanon and the region benefiting Iran. Israel must now watch over its shoulders before any reckless military venture.

In spite of blatant Western lies , nationalist Hezbollah movement has very wide support in Lebanon , where USA has now sent in its disruptive agents to counter Hezbollah's peaceful sit in for a role in decision making appropriate to its showing in the war and its popularity .In Syria with over 80% Sunni population , the ruling elite is dominated by Assad family led Shia Alawaites .But no where in the world such a minuscule minority rules as do the Jews and the Israel Lobby in USA. If the Holocaust can not be questioned neither can the influence of Israeli Lobby in USA. A recent book by former President and highly respected peacemaker Jimmy Carter , comparing Israel's apartheid system with that of former state of South Africa has brought the whole force of Israeli lobby on his head.

Condi Rice in the New Middle East after last years birth pangs;

Condi Rice began her safari of the Middle East from Israel and returned via friendly Angela Markel's Berlin and London with Tony Blair still clinging on despite failed policies and other scandals .As for Rice's attempt at rejuvenating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Arab media simply described it as an attempt to change the subject .US has little credibility as an honest broker.

The carefully worded support that Arab allies are offering for Bush's new Iraq strategy highlights the deep suspicion among Washington's few real friends and puppets in the region that Iraq might already be a lost cause. The Bush plan " encountered strong skepticism across the Mideast, where many believe that even with more soldiers, America will fail to break the cycle of violence."

Rice who discussed the 'Surge' plan in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, got only vague commitments and lukewarm response She and 8 Arab foreign ministers in a statement welcomed U.S. commitment to defend Iraq 's " territorial integrity and guarantees of its stability ." The host, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheik Mohammed Al Sabah, when asked if it was already too late to stop the rising cycle of Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq replied, "Nine foreign ministers are meeting in Kuwait today to try to prevent Iraq from sliding into a civil war." " I think that speaks volumes." Or rather the hopelessness of the situation.

Earlier key Sunni Arab allies while endorsing the goals of Bush's plan, and expressing hopes of success , almost in the same breath suggested that the Shia -led government in Baghdad cannot or would not implement the plan.

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal was perhaps the most positive , who agreed " with the full objectives set by the new plan, the strategy." After talks with Rice earlier , he commented , "This has objectives that ... if it were applied, it will solve the problems facing Iraq." But he emphasized that it was the responsibility of the Iraq government alone. "We cannot be Iraqis more than Iraqis," Saud emphasised. "Other countries can help, but the burden, the whole burden and taking a decision will be the Iraqis'."

It was well put by the Saudi newspaper Al Jazirah which noted, "The Americans are trying to get out of the Baghdad bottleneck and they are looking for agent players in managing their conflict with Tehran to make their new strategy in Iraq successful."

Of course the Sunni Arab world would not trust Prime Minister al-Maliki's government with close ties with Shia Iran. The Shias have become empowered after many centuries , courtesy Washington and would not let go .Rice did admit that" There are concerns about whether the Maliki government is prepared to take an evenhanded, nonsectarian path here. There's no doubt about that."

Bush's plan that al-Maliki use Iraqi troops to crack down on militants from both sides and meet a series of benchmarks to promote reconciliation between Sunnis and Shias is unlikely to succeed. Al-Maliki has resisted U.S. pressure in the past . Before Bush unveiled his plan al-Maliki was made to agree that he would go after his political ally Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

But he has already criticised US for not imparting proper training or providing weapons to Iraqi forces ( aka artillery , tanks and helicopter gun ships ), which US fears might be passed on to the militias and used against US forces .To begin with al-Maliki has appointed his own man as commander of the Iraqi forces in Baghdad against US choice.

Rice tried to exploit fear of Iran among US's Sunni allies, many with substantial Shia minorities, to support its plans, But have not they outsourced their security to USA since decades in return for free exploitation of the regions oil riches by US led West. The Arab states have amassed massive arms inventories , earn fat bribes and subsidise US-UK military industry complex. They can hardly use these arms, as was proved in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Scared and hoodwinked Saudi Arabia allowed US GIs including female troopers, a run of the Arabian peninsula, sacred soil according to Muslims. The rest ie Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is history.

Yes , the statement in Kuwait did contain a coded signal to Iran, which was reportedly not part of the group's discussions. "Relations among all countries should be based on mutual respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states and on the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of other nations," [ Does Washington respect this principle and what did the group do when US invaded Iraq illegally].

Intimidated and nervous, Sunni Arab rulers in Cairo, Amman, Riyadh and the Gulf are egging US to stay put in the region , to stop and roll back Iranian influence . They had acted similarly when Saudis, Kuwaitis , Emirates , Egypt , West et al had encouraged and funded 'brother Saddam' and Iraq in its 1980-88 war against a rampant Iran after the Khomeini led Shia revolution of 1979 .Iraq's Shia Arabs had fought against Iran's Revolutionary Guards and young boys seeking martyrdom .And how did the Arabs repay that debt and react to the US controlled and Al Maliki executed Kangaroo Court trials and lynching of 'brother Saddam'? In 2003 many in the Arab world were unhappy that for Arab honour , Iraqi officers and soldiers did not sacrifice themselves futilely against absurd odds in Iraq against F-16 , Cobra gun ships and massive artillery.( They melted to fight another day , as the Iraqi resistance now.)

But who among the Arabs would fight. Egypt initiated the 1973 war to recover its lands and oil fields lost to Israel after the 1967 debacle. The oil Sheikhs used the war to raise oil prices and its nouvo riche citizens went around lording over sophisticated Cairo and Beirut. After the 1979 peace treaty with Israel , Egypt , now on US pay roll retired .There can be no war with out Egypt in the Middle East( against Israel ) and no peace without Syria .During the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war millions of Egyptians worked on Iraqi farms and industries for Iraqis doing the fighting .

It was Pakistani Brigadier Zia-ul- Haq who organized the military operation against PLO guerillas in Jordan and expelled them to Lebanon in 1977. (With the ruler scripting a message for the Pakistani Military Chief for saving his Kingdom , so a retired Pakistani General told me). So who will fight the Iranians or even Iraqi Shia Arabs now in militias , army and police . They and Sunni Iraqi resistance now fought Iran's Shia revolutionary guards and young boys looking for martyrdom.

Western Policy of Divide and Rule;

USA and the perfidious Albion would only succeed in igniting a Shia-Sunni conflagration in the region except that oil prices would zoom and seriously affect the US and world economy. The US dilemma is how to expel Iran and keep control of Iraq, the region with its oil wealth for its use , as hitherto . It is a mission impossible. The British divided Hindustan into Pakistan and India, so that a weaker Muslim Pakistan ( with its ruling military elite ), would perforce ally with the West to protect from USSR , Middle East oil wells ,for exclusive Western exploitation . This can be seen from the British records of the period quoted in a recent book by an Indian diplomat, who was ADC in 1947 to the last British Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten. Following the partition of India there was ethnic cleansing in West Pakistan , exchange of populations and millions of Hindus and Muslims butchered each other . The West is at its old game again in the Middle East.

One can not forget the most disruptive Joker in the pack; Israel .Now in a state of uncertainty and an existential threat in the wake of its defeat by Lebanon's Hezbollah. An Israeli Naval warship was disabled with Hassan Nasrallah giving a running commentary of the attack on Al Minar ,its TV channel , which Tel Aviv could not disrupt during the war .Apparently Hezbollah succeeded in breaking into Israeli communications net work .Some reports suggest among other things , by providing drugs to bored Israeli border guards across south Lebanon.

West and USA are now flaunting its military prowess and would later rewrite history . Except that with online media , internet blogs and many honest and dedicated media persons even in the West , one can surf and ferry out the truth .For example ,in the Second World War , USA played a minor role compared to the Soviet Union in the destruction of the Nazi war machine in which USSR sacrificed tens of millions of its soldiers and citizens .Its economy was destroyed .Come lately US ( it has already spent more time in Iraq now than in that war ) and even UK tried to take all the credit . They produced 'The longest day ' and 'Gen Patton ' and UK dreams up James Bond victories in the battle field and the bed room .Even channels like 'Discovery Channel ' spew lies all the time and brain wash the ignorant . Germans and Russian soldiers were accused of mass rapes and killings. US soldiers raped many thousands women in West Europe and it faced a very high rate of desertion in its troops. But for instant communications now ,you would not have heard of or very little of Gulags like Guantamano, Abu Ghraib , Bagram , genocide in Fallujah ,Haditha and elsewhere , and rendition by CIA for torture of innocents , mostly Muslims in secret places all around the world . This has been the core of the Western mental make up though out the colonial era and even now .

Shias developed the first human bomber , the Assassins and evolved the system of takkyia ie not telling the truth under duress and occupation making them very secretive in their methods as shown in Lebanon . So US would be making a grave mistake in attacking Iran , exposed as it is and fully stretched on the ground .Iran's military build up has not been degraded by sanctions like in Iraq , which had no navy or air force or missiles and even WMDs. US and China and others have provided enough military hardware including sophisticated missiles to Iran and Syria .

As for US righteousness most of the military hard ware US gifted to Pakistan to fight communism was used against democratic India .US now grants Air and Naval aircraft and hardware to counter terrorism in Afghanistan ( and Pakistan ).Israel and USA should not forget the deep tunnels and other innovations employed brilliantly in south Lebanon against such heavy odds.

Conclusions ;

Like Iraq , some fancy schemes are on the anvil in Pentagon. To ward off the threats to the world economy if Tehran curtailed oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the US has reportedly made contingency plans for the indefinite takeover of Iranian territory in Chah Bahar, which would deny Tehran its strategic leverage with Hormuz. Washington might even push for outright "regime change" in Tehran, never mind lack of troops necessary for even a limited war. Theoretically , would this not take the war and US troops to Iran ( via Azerbaijan ) , which will then face Russia across and the Caspian Sea.

During the failed 1979 US hostages rescue operation in Iran ordered by President Jimmy Carter , it was said that USSR had tipped Tehran about Washington's
plans. Both Russia and China have serious and log term stakes in a united and stable Iran.

"The administration does have Iran on the brain, and I think they are exaggerating the amount of Iranian activities in Iraq," commented Kenneth Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, "There's a good chance that this is going to be counterproductive."

W Joseph Stroupe , editor of Global Events Magazine wrote recently that the Middle East was already 'like a sectarian tinderbox waiting for a spark to ignite its multiple civil wars-in-waiting. The United States' additional 21,500 new troops will be like a desperate roving band of flamethrowers let loose on the entire region, from Saudi Arabia to Iran. " Stroupe wondered if the current invasion plans were any better than of 2003 .Would it achieve only " an early but short-lived victory over Iran, only to massively lose the longer war, just as happened in Iraq? "

Iraq's sectarian and other militias will not lay down their arms and would fight the US led occupation forces to retain and further consolidate their hard-won power and prestige within their respective regions. Very importantly, the majority of Iraqis , who have come to rely on their respective militias for safety and security in the environment of the abject failure of Iraq's government and the US and British forces to provide such, would not wish to see their favored militias weakened or defanged.

Hence the population can be expected to deny all meaningful support to the US. Many will actively oppose the occupying powers through their respective militias, thereby dooming the entire effort to massive failure." If the US and Britain are perceived by Iraq's Shias as excessively targeting Shia militias while largely ignoring Sunni militias, then they risk mobilizing the entire body of Iraq's Shia population against the continued presence of foreign forces, resulting in a virtual Shia insurrection, with catastrophic results,' says Stroupe.

By unintentionally shoving the entire oil-and-gas-rich Middle East on to a fast track to chaos, the US will empower Russia as the immovable global energy kingpin. Already, Europe and Asia are being forced to reconsider placing too much reliance on the region for energy imports, opening the way for Russia." Africa and Latin America suffer from strategic instability and long distances haulage.

Iran would be helped in its recovery by Russia, China and other key energy exporting and consuming nations of the world. While signing another liquid gas contract with Tehran , Beijing brushed aside Washington's opposition in the spirit of recent UNSC resolution . Iran has excellent relations with Russia and China .The three powers could initiate a global energy consortium opposed to US power. It could be joined by others like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, with Iran even becoming a full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is slowly morphing into a military alliance to counter a rapacious NATO , now getting ensnared in the Afghanistan morass .

" I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions… I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here…

There is scarcely a single newspaper… which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. … Any alternative Government that might be formed here… would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover, in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. …No progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources. --At present we are paying… millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

Extracts from a memorandum dated September 1, 1922 , from Winston Churchill , Colonial Secretary to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, whose government was on its last legs.

Both Bush and Blair claim to be great admirers of Churchill, but never come round to read this chapter in Iraq's history or Churchill's naval debacle at Gallipoli . Now another naval misadventure is under planning.


K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copy right with the author. E-mail Gajendrak@hotmail.com