Thursday, January 11, 2007

Is Bush calling for genocide?

This may be a little tinfoil-hattish, but that's never stopped me. From xymphora:

The 'surge' is itself another Bush lie. The Pentagon doesn't have the troops, so the 'increase' will just be Pentagon crooked bookkeeping (crooked bookkeeping is something the Pentagon is good at). The real plan is much worse. It is a covert change in the rules of engagement. [...]

This is coded language, but not difficult to read. Bush is calling for genocide against the Sunnis. He is following the recommendation of John Podhoretz in the New York Post (note that Uruknet misattributes this to John Podhoretz's almost equally vile father; the most infamous line is in red [bold]):

"What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

If you can't imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?"

Now we can imagine Bush issuing such an order. We will also see the Americans go medieval on the Sunnis in Anbar (who are called 'al Qaeda'). Just to confirm who is running things, there is a tiny reference in Bush's speech to more for Israel:

"We will expand intelligence sharing - and deploy Patriot air defence systems to reassure our friends and allies."

Patriot air defense systems deployed in Iraq would protect Israel from attacks from where? You do the geometry. If Israel wants to try something awful, it would not want to face any kind of counterattack.

The neocons have been lying in the weeds, pretending to have been soundly defeated by the all-powerful American Establishment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bush's speech could have been - and probably was - written by Bill Kristol. The Zionist Plan for the Middle East continues, with the next step ensuring that Iraq breaks up. You have to wonder what the Saudis, who have expressed concern about Shi'ite influence, will think about an American campaign of genocide against Sunnis. You have to wonder what the American Establishment, too decadent and weak to defend itself, will do when much of its wealth is destroyed.

Maybe so, maybe no.

One thing I find horribly ironic is that Bush is backing al Maliki, a weak politician at the head of a weak non-representative (of the Iraqi people, anyway) government, who remains tenuously in place at the suffrance of al Sadr and his Mahdi militia. By attempting to quell a Sunni insurgency, Bush is in effect helping al Sadr and thus aiding and abetting Iranian influence in Iraq at the same time he is threatening to go to war with Iran.

Those people are all going to be there when we leave, one year or a hundred years. Sorta like this other place I dimly remember from my youth...

Bush has set these folks up beautifully to have it out with one another over who gets control. If there's gonna be any re-arranging of the Middle East, the Middle Easterners are the ones who will do it.

Let's leave and let 'em have at it. When things quiet down a little in a hundred years, or a thousand, we can go back. If we want to. If they'll let us.

No comments: