THINKING FOR OURSELVES

Patterns of the General

By Shea Howell

Michigan Citizen, Sept.16-22, 2007

On January 11th, 2007 President George W. Bush conceded that his plans to secure Iraq had failed. So he was sending an additional 20.000 troops in a strategic effort to quell sectarian killings and hasten the day when U.S. soldiers could begin coming home.

This new strategy was intended to put more pressure on the Baghdad government to end the sectarian violence which has brought the country to the brink of civil war. The emphasis was on the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki taking greater responsibility for the country's future.

This “surge,” hinted at for days in the press as the newly-elected Democrats were taking over Congress, was stunning in its rejection of the expressed will of the American people to end this war.

Now, after nearly nine months, in an effort that has achieved only three of the 18 goals set forth to justify it, we are being told that the “surge” should continue to the summer of 2008, at which time, on the eve of the 2008 presidential election, withdrawals will have taken us back to the troop levels of November 2006. Thus this temporary surge has served mainly to counter the clearly-expressed will of the American people to end this war.

Over the last month the administration has orchestrated a massive propaganda effort to turn around public opinion. President Bush has given a series of speeches, press releases have hinted at the dangers of Iran, Ari Fleischer, the former White House Press Secretary, has run a 15 million dollar media campaign, and Bush has made a photo-op trip to Iraq. All of this has not changed the mind of the American public.

A Gallup Poll for USA Today has found that 60% of Americans want the government to set a timetable for withdrawing troops and to stick to it regardless of conditions on the ground. This is a record high for the poll.

The testimony of General David Petraeus should be a signal to everyone that Bush has learned nothing from his January 2007 admission of failure. First, while offering a more credible assessment of conditions in Iraq, Petraeus followed the administration pattern of constantly shifting the justification for war. Gone are “weapons of mass destruction,” “regime change,” and bringing democracy to the Middle East. Instead our continuing military commitment is now necessary to defeat Al Qaeda and contain Iran.

"The administration is tailoring its arguments to those most likely to achieve resonance with the American public, and focusing on Al Qaeda and Iran certainly strikes a responsive chord in the country that transcends the Republican base," says James Dobbins, director of international security and defense policy at the RAND Corp. in Arlington, Va. Most troubling in all of the General’s testimony was the ease with which he shifted the purpose of his mission and invoked the names of Al Qaeda and Iran.

Behind these loaded terms are serious distinctions between the group called Al Qaeda in Iraq, considered to be responsible for less than 5% of all the violence in that country, and the Al Qaeda of September 11th. By refusing to make these distinctions, Petraeus is continuing the Bush strategy of invoking fear to inhibit thought and analysis.

Many people believe the best way to defuse Al Qaeda in Iraq is to withdraw U.S. troops, not arm Sunni insurgents.

Petraeus implies that the development of a large military presence is the best and only way to have a productive relationship with Iran. This is nonsense and completely distorts the possibility for serious diplomatic and strategic discussions with the leaders of that nation.

General Petraeus tells us that he was speaking in his own words, but the patterns behind them are all too familiar. It’s time we held the President and his generals accountable for this illegal war. We need to wage a new path to peace.

Email Shea Boggs Center,