The Bush has spoken and — surprise! — we’re sending more troops into the hell-hole of Iraq. Where have I heard this before? Hmmm… sending more troops… sounds vaguely familiar. Much has been made of Bush’s admission that, yes, there have been mistakes, and to the extent that mistakes have been made, yes, the responsibility falls to him. My hometown newspaper actually put that striking news into its headline. Okay, someone explain to me why it’s news that Bush is acknowledging what the rest of the nation has known for several years now — that his Iraq adventure has been one massive fuck-up after another, and that it’s obviously his fucking fault, thank you very much. And what is it worth for him to backhandedly admit errors at the same time as announcing yet another massive one, the “surge” tactic? I mean, one would assume that if he regretted the errors, he might make at least a feeble attempt not to repeat them. But that’s not the Dubya way. What the hell does he have to lose now?

Actually, the story that didn’t get a lot of play was the one about the U.S. attack on the Iranian consulate in Irbil, deep in the relatively quiet Kurdish area. It apparently took place around when Bush was making his comments about Iran having some kind of undue influence over the chaotic nation just across their long western frontier (the country that invaded them just two decades ago, now occupied by an openly hostile superpower). Anyway, our boys reportedly busted up the place and detained six Iranians without even telling the Kurds. This seems particularly odd since Irbil is a long way away from the principal conflict zones, and the Kurds have been the group most amenable to the U.S. occupation. (There was a standoff in Irbil between U.S. and Kurdish forces that almost came to shots fired). What is the objective here — to piss off the last remaining group of people in Iraq that doesn’t utterly despise us? Or, as Juan Cole suggests, to provoke a reaction from Iran?

One thing is clear — our leaders are totally unscrewed. They have opened a disastrous “third front” in their war on terror by encouraging and supporting the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, handing that sorry nation (another long-term recipient of U.S., um, assistance) back the same warlords that mis-ran it before. They are actively positioning themselves for an attack on Iran that will make the “catastro-fuck” of Operation Iraqi Freedom seem mild by comparison. And now they are planning to send another 21,000+ American troops to Baghdad and al-Anbar, a fool’s errand heartily endorsed by “straight talk express” conductor and presidential hopeful John McCain, who in fact wants to send even more troops. (My guess is that, if sent to the White House, McCain would want to re-invade South Vietnam in the belief that that war is still winnable.) Buyer beware.

So yes, Bush may be the stupidest man ever to occupy the oval office. But don’t make the mistake of thinking he’s the only one likely to drive us into endless, pointless warfare. Plenty of options for that distinction.

luv u,

jp

Don’t know how they managed it, but the Bush administration appears to have found a way to evoke sympathy for one of the biggest mass murderers in modern Middle East history (in the same league as Bush himself, in fact). The ugly spectacle of Saddam’s hanging was somewhat reminiscent of the Abu Ghraib images — dim, shabby, shameful. As regular readers of this sorry blog know, I am no fan of the death penalty, even when it comes to war criminals like Saddam and, well, George Bush. This goes beyond the question of basic humanity, though. If you’re going to execute someone, that should be punishment enough without making a circus of it. As it was, they (i.e. the American idiots who decided on this policy) made Hussein seem dignified by comparison and, in so doing, further inflamed the Sunni community in Iraq and throughout the Middle East by allowing the deed to be performed on the day Sunnis celebrate Eid. I can’t entirely blame the Shi’a execution squad for behaving as they did — that’s to be expected. But don’t tell me no one in the Green Zone knew that particular detail wouldn’t be shot through with militia people.

There’s an even more critical issue here. The execution of Saddam Hussein closes off a rich source of critical testimony regarding crimes committed during his rule and the accountability of those associated with him during those years. That includes whatever light he could shed on American and European complicity in the war against Iran, the use of chemical weapons against Persians, Shi’a Arabs, and Kurds, and so on. As Richard Falk pointed out on Democracy Now!, Hussein was put to death for an act of collective punishment that had nothing to do with the U.S. If he had been prosecuted for his serial chemical attacks from 1983 forward, we might have learned more about our role in facilitating those attacks, apologizing for them, covering them up, etc. Not that any of those details would make it into the mainstream American press, which has essentially expunged the U.S. role in supporting Hussein from their various retrospectives and timelines.

Such are the fortunes of those who benefit from U.S. covert operations — some retire to Florida (Orlando Bosch); others dangle from the end of a rope. The CIA apparently fostered Saddam’s early career as a torturer and assassin, quietly supporting his participation in 1959 in a notorious attempt on the life of the Iraqi president (who was a communist). After he became Iraq’s leader (something like Lee Harvey Oswald becoming president), he received crucial support from the U.S., particularly during the Reagan / Bush I administrations, who unfailingly portrayed him as a “moderating influence” in Middle Eastern affairs right up until his invasion of Kuwait. While they turned against Saddam at that point, it was in such a way as to allow him to carry out one of the greatest atrocities of his career — putting down the Kurdish and Shi’a uprisings George Bush Sr. had actively encouraged, as the army of “Stormin’ Norman” Schwartzkopf looked on just a few miles away. Aside from resulting in probably half a million deaths, the Clinton era sanctions only strengthened Saddam’s grip on his nation, forcing ordinary Iraqis to rely on the central government for subsistence. Now, of course, we are busily compounding the heinous errors of past administrations with even more heinous errors, including a Bush surge strategy that will focus on targeting the denizens of Baghdad’s poorest neighborhoods and the most vulnerable portions of Iraq’s majority Shi’a community.

If nothing else, we are demonstrating that you can kill hope if you try hard enough… but stupidity is a lot more resilient.

luv u,

jp