ear must be coursing through President Bush's veins
as he realizes the Iraqi trap in which the neocons have placed him. Bush is caught
between an Iraqi civil war and a wider insurgency.
Desperate to extricate himself from the weekly carnage well before the November
election, Bush can neither deliver on his promise of democracy via direct elections
nor impose his plan for an Iraqi assembly elected indirectly by caucuses.
If Bush delivers on his democracy promise, the Shi'ites with 60% of the
population will be elected, and the country will break out in civil war. If
he tries to water down Shi'ite representation with his plan for an assembly
elected indirectly by caucuses, the so far peaceful Shi'ites are likely
to join the violence.
If the Shi'ites become violent, the insurgency would be too large to be
contained by our present occupying force. Moreover, the outbreak of a general
rebellion in Iraq would spill over throughout the Middle East where unpopular
secular rulers are sitting on a smoldering Islam. Our puppet in Pakistan would
likely bite the dust. Israel would then face countervailing Muslim nukes.
If you think more US troops are needed now in Iraq, imagine how many more would
be required to deal with a wider conflagration. Where would they come from?
The US military is already so thinly stretched that soon 40% of the occupying
troops will be drawn from the National Guard and reservists, resulting in tremendous
disruption in the affairs of tens of thousands of families.
Pilots and troops are shunning the cash bonuses offered for reenlistments.
The troops recognize a quagmire even if their neocon overlords cannot. The only
source of troops is the draft.
A Shi'ite insurgency that brought back the draft would deprive Bush of
reelection. A civil war with the prospect of a Kurdish state would bring in
the Turks. On January 14 Turkish prime minister Erdogan said that Turkey will
intervene in the event of Iraq's disintegration.
The Shi'ites and the Turks are forming an alliance as both have the same
interest in maintaining the geographical integrity of the Iraqi state. The US
could come dangerously close to military conflict with a NATO ally.
All of this was perfectly clear well in advance of the ill-considered invasion.
If Bush wasn't smart enough to see it, why didn't his National Security
Advisor or his Secretary of State? How did a handful of neocon ideologues hijack
US foreign policy?
Bush did not campaign on a neocon policy of conquest in the Middle East. There
was no public debate over this policy. The invasion of Iraq was the private
agenda of the neocons.
Why have the neocons not been held responsible for their treason in abusing
their presidential appointments to substitute their personal agenda for America's
Bush has been the neocon's puppet for so long that he is now stuck with
responsibility for their horrible mistake. With no way of his own to get out
of his trap, his arrogance toward the "irrelevant" UN and our doubting
allies has disappeared. Come bail me out, he pleads.
Bush, desperate to be extricated before doom strikes him is experiencing a
reality totally different from the chest-thumping of neocon megalomaniacs, such
as Charles Krauthammer, who declared the US so powerful as to be able to "reshape,
indeed remake, reality on its own."
Bush now knows that he lacks the power to deal with the reality of Iraq. Indeed,
Bush cannot even deal with his own appointees.