26 February 2007
Posted to the web 26 February 2007

Reason Wafawarova
Sydney

IN a typical recycling of arrogance and apparent abuse of a non-renewable second term, United States President George W. Bush has once again disregarded public opinion from the electorate, political views from both Houses of the US Congress, technical opinion from army generals and consultative inputs from the bipartisan Iraq study group.

The announcement of an additional 20 000 troops for Iraq is not in itself a surprise as many clearly saw it coming.

What is most notable and maybe worrisome for some is that by speaking against the legislature, Bush has directly spoken against the Americans; and by speaking against the generals, Bush has directly spoken against his own troops.

The US president has admitted his failures in Iraq, although he did not apologise; he has dubbed such failures mistakes for which he takes direct responsibility.

He has, as usual, resolved to correct his mistakes on behalf of Americans, this time by speaking and acting against every institution of governance.

He knows he has already paid the political price for his errors by losing the mid-term elections and he probably sees no further punishment coming from the Americans before the end of his last term in office in 2008.

He has probably realised that Americans are keen to impeach a sitting president for a few quickies with a female secretary in the White House than they would bother about a "war president" who spends eight years in office massacring innocent civilians across the world.

Someone just reminded me that the Clinton issue was more about his lies than the escapades with Monica Lewinsky.

It really got me wondering which would be a more worrying lie, denying a sexual relationship or cooking up a story that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and using that lie to get more than 3 000 US soldiers killed?

The American world is all that amazing at times.

Bush released a five-point plan and it is interesting to note that all the five points in the so-called new strategy for Iraq are not only contestable, but also highly risky and unworkable.

Point number one on his strategy was the announcement that he would raise the US troop contingent by more than 20 000 soldiers despite advice from former Army General John Abizaid that such a move would only intensify the war in Iraq and add to the US death toll.

There is no logical reason to suggest that an extra 20 000 troops would effectively end a war which 132 000 soldiers have dismally failed to contain.

The message sent by Bush is that he is prepared to get more American soldiers killed and he is ready to perpetuate the illegal war at the expense of more innocent civilians in Iraq.

By that decision, Bush has boldly spoken against his own people, his own troops and the people of Iraq.

If this is not ruling by decree or, simply put, gross tyranny and dictatorship, then one wonders what dictatorship looks like.

Bush's second point is to improve Iraqi security forces' capacity to protect the civilian population. Occupiers cannot protect against Iraqis, and what Bush must know is that Iraqi civilians want protection from American occupation.

It is very clear that what is happening in Iraq is a direct result of American occupation and at the moment the US is least qualified to talk of protecting Iraqis or training them to protect themselves.

This is clearly based on the fact that the American presence in Iraq is the sole motivation for the resistance seen since 2003.

One wonders how the American president intends to train Iraqi forces to protect fellow citizens by targeting other citizens.

Thirdly, Bush talks of setting political benchmarks for the stooge regime of Nouri al Maliki. This appears to be mere rhetoric calculated to imply that the Iraqi government has a semblance of independence and sovereignty. It is clear that every decision taken by Maliki so far has been based on political benchmarks set by the US, including the show trial that resulted in the US-inspired murder of Saddam Hussein.

The fact that Maliki has no control of militias from both sides of the political divide is not a matter that can be solved by setting new political benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Maliki is not disarming the militias simply because he and his US superiors have no capacity to do so, even with the Shiite militias and death squads.

Fourthly, Bush talks of disbursing US$1 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. This clearly looks like a misplaced priority given that Bush is the only person capable of seeing logic in building new structures in a war zone. Maybe the US president is so desperate to include something with a human face in his five-point plan that he really does not care committing US$1 billion to waste if that can for once fool the American public and whoever might be gullible enough out there.

Lastly, Bush rhetorically promises a tough stance against Iran and Syria and this despite all the warnings he has had about confronting those two countries. All of Bush's advisers have told him time and again that one more act of aggression in the Middle East is going to be one too many and it would appear Bush is determined to have Americans pay more for his witless conduct in office.

It is not surprising that the US allies, fronted by the senior poodle, Tony Blair, have officially supported Bush's so-called new policy on Iraq. United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, Australian Premier John Howard and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso all conspired to support Bush because an American defeat in Iraq would be a defeat for the West and a boost to "terrorism".

This blind support is not at all surprising given that these American allies have never been known to take any independent decisions regarding their foreign policies in general and military engagement in particular.

However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman logically pointed out that stability in Iraq only depends on the Iraqi people governing themselves and on their political will to reconcile. Stability, like democracy, cannot be imposed from outside, not by hundreds of thousands of troops, not by might or any other power, but from within the people concerned.

This is the lesson that Bush cannot afford to fail to grasp, unless his idea of stability is more bloodshed.

George Jaboor, a Syrian Member of Parliament, pointed out that Bush was recycling and "following through a failed plan". He said the plan is shallowly based on confrontation, challenge and accusations of "anything that can come to his mind".

That analysis and comment is not unreasonable if one looks at the speech by Bush, who seems obsessed with the idea that America cannot be defeated in spite of the mistakes it makes. If failing to win can be regarded as losing, then America is losing every single minute they keep staying in Iraq and this is the reality that Bush needs to live with.

This is the reality that Senator Dick, a US Democrat, says Bush must learn to accept. He warned that America has already paid for the Iraq blunder with the lives of young Americans and hard-earned taxes.

The Bush administration has no control over the intentions of the five-point-plan and all they can do is hope that Iraqis behave the way they have predicted and you do not win a war by planning on what your enemy can or should do, but on what you yourself can do.

It is sad that once more, the US president has planned another big criminal act and more lives are going to be lost because hegemony has threatened its own existence by gross recklessness in conduct and planning.