ROBERT FISK: BUSH'S NEW STRATEGY
The Independent/UK
Published: 11 January 2007
So into the graveyard of Iraq, George Bush, commander-in-chief,
is to send another 21,000 of his soldiers. The march of folly is
to continue...
There will be timetables, deadlines, benchmarks, goals for both
America and its Iraqi satraps. But the war against terror can still
be won. We shall prevail. Victory or death. And it shall be death.
President Bush's announcement early this morning tolled every bell. A
billion dollars of extra aid for Iraq, a diary of future success
as the Shia powers of Iraq still to be referred to as the
"democratically elected government" march in lockstep with
America's best men and women to restore order and strike fear into the
hearts of al-Qa'ida. It will take time oh, yes, it will take
years, at least three in the words of Washington's top commander in
the field, General Raymond Odierno this week but the mission
will be accomplished.
Mission accomplished. Wasn't that the refrain almost four years ago,
on that lonely aircraft carrier off California, Bush striding the
deck in his flying suit? And only a few months later, the President
had a message for Osama bin Laden and the insurgents of Iraq. "Bring
'em on!" he shouted. And on they came. Few paid attention late
last year when the Islamist leadership of this most ferocious of
Arab rebellions proclaimed Bush a war criminal but asked him not to
withdraw his troops. "We haven't yet killed enough of them," their
videotaped statement announced.
Well, they will have their chance now. How ironic that it was the
ghastly Saddam, dignified amid his lynch mob, who dared on the
scaffold to tell the truth which Bush and Blair would not utter:
that Iraq has become "hell" .
It is de rigueur, these days, to recall Vietnam, the false victories,
the body counts, the torture and the murders but history is
littered with powerful men who thought they could batter their way to
victory against the odds. Napoleon comes to mind; not the emperor who
retreated from Moscow, but the man who believed the wild guerrilleros
of French-occupied Spain could be liquidated. He tortured them,
he executed them, he propped up a local Spanish administration of
what we would now call Quislings, al-Malikis to a man. He rightly
accused his enemies Moore and Wellington of supporting
the insurgents. And when faced with defeat, Napoleon took the personal
decision "to relaunch the machine" and advanced to recapture Madrid,
just as Bush intends to recapture Baghdad. Of course, it ended in
disaster. And George Bush is no Napoleon Bonaparte.
No, I would turn to another, less flamboyant, far more modern
politician for prophecy, an American who understood, just before the
2003 launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, what would happen to
the arrogance of power. For their relevance this morning, the words
of the conservative politician Pat Buchanan deserve to be written
in marble:
"We will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the 'On
to Berlin' bravado with which French poilus and British tommies
marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk
neoconservatives predict ... For a militant Islam that holds in thrall
scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush
dictating the destiny of the Islamic world ...
"The one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling
imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out
of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out
of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis
out of Lebanon... We have started up the road to empire and over the
next hill we will meet those who went before."
But George Bush dare not see these armies of the past, their ghosts as
palpable as the phantoms of the 3,000 Americans let us forget the
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis already done to death in this
obscene war, and those future spirits of the dead still living amid
the 20,000 men and women whom Bush is now sending to Iraq. In Baghdad,
they will move into both Sunni and Shia "insurgent strongholds"
as opposed to just the Sunni variety which they vainly invested in
the autumn because this time, and again I quote General Odierno,
it is crucial the security plan be " evenhanded". This time, he said,
"we have to have a believable approach, of going after Sunni and
Shia extremists".
But a "believable approach" is what Bush does not have. The days of
even-handed oppression disappeared in the aftermath of invasion.
"Democracy" should have been introduced at the start not
delayed until the Shias threatened to join the insurgency if Paul
Bremer, America's second proconsul, did not hold elections
just as the American military should have prevented the anarchy of
April 2003. The killing of 14 Sunni civilians by US paratroopers at
Fallujah that spring set the seal on the insurgency.
Yes, Syria and Iran could help George Bush. But Tehran was part of
his toytown "Axis of Evil", Damascus a mere satellite. They were to
be future prey, once Project Iraq proved successful. Then there came
the shame of our torture, our murders, the mass ethnic cleansing in
the land we said we had liberated.
And so more US troops must die, sacrificed for those who have
already died.
We cannot betray those who have been killed. It is a lie, of
course. Every desperate man keeps gambling, preferably with other
men's lives.
But the Bushes and Blairs have experienced war through television
and Hollywood; this is both their illusion and their shield.
Historians will one day ask if the West did not plunge into its
Middle East catastrophe so blithely because not one member of any
Western government except Colin Powell, and he has shuffled
off stage ever fought in a war. The Churchills have gone,
used as a wardrobe for a prime minister who lied to his people and
a president who, given the chance to fight for his country, felt his
Vietnam mission was to defend the skies over Texas.
But still he talks of victory, as ignorant of the past as he is of
the future.
Pat Buchanan ended his prophecy with imperishable words: "The only
lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."
The Bush plan, and the question of withdrawal
What Bush says
20,000 troops increase
Mistake of not sending sufficient troops must be rectified. Troops
stabilise Baghdad and reinforce Anbar province, on condition that
Iraqis take on Shia militias
$1bn reconstruction aid
Fresh funds will help create jobs and stimulate economy to show Iraqis
there can be a peace dividend, and friendly Middle East states should
help out too
Pullout
US commitment to Iraq is not open-ended but no timetable for troop
withdrawal, even though US troops are expected to hand control to
Iraqis by November
What Congress says
20,000 troops increase
Troop build-up is a mistake. House expected to vote on increase,
Senate legislation forces Bush to seek congressional approval but
neither move could block troop deployment
$1bn reconstruction aid
Don't throw good money after bad. US has squandered billions since
the invasion and Democrats plan investigation. Millions of dollars
'overpaid' by Pentagon to Iraq contractors
Pullout
Bush has not learnt the lesson of November's mid-term elections which
gave Democrats control of the House and Senate on the platform of a
phased withdrawal from Iraq
What Baker says
20,000 troops increase
Up to 20,000 military trainers and troops embedded into and supporting
Iraqi army, while combat troops drawn down to avoid increase in
total numbers
$1bn reconstruction aid
US economic assistance should be boosted to $5bn per year. US should
take anti-corruption measures by posting oil contracts on the internet
for outside scrutiny
Pullout
All US combat troops not needed for force protection should be out
of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008
Likely outcome
20,000 troops increase
Escalation of conflict
Money will be wasted, with official corruption in Iraq said to drain
$7bn a year
Pullout
Troop surge could disguise 'cut and run' depending on the circumstances
in both Iraq and America
