The Political Junkies

Gen. Zinni’s credentials are unimpeachable; he oversaw enforcement of the “no-fly” zones in Iraq and conducted four days of aerial attacks in 1998. He also served as a Special Envoy in the Middle East under Secretary of State Powell.

Gen. Zinni gave reporters this assessment of an occupation of Iraq – in 1998:

Zinni long has worried that there are worse outcomes possible in Iraq than having Saddam Hussein in power -- such as eliminating him in such a way that Iraq will become a new haven for terrorism in the Middle East.

"I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now," he told reporters in 1998. "I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered." It was a warning for which Iraq hawks such as Paul D. Wolfowitz, then an academic and [then] the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, attacked him in print at the time.

Bush released just four pages of the National Intelligence Estimate that has rocked his administration’s claim that the war in and occupation of Iraq has made America safer. Now, the UN has released a report – again devastating to the President.

In a second blow to the president, a new U.N. report said the Iraq war was providing al Qaeda with a training center and fresh recruits, and was inspiring a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan hundreds of miles away. . . .

"New explosive devices are now used in Afghanistan within a month of their first appearing in Iraq," it said. "And while the Taliban have not been found fighting outside Afghanistan/Pakistan, there have been reports of them training in both Iraq and Somalia."

There is a third report. Joshua Marshall at Talking Points Memo, a TPJ favorite, has developed the story:

This is a different report than the one President Bush partly declassified on Tuesday. This one deals solely with Iraq and the state of things on the ground today.

After Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) pressed the administration to release the report Tuesday morning, President Bush's Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend to a press briefing that the report was scheduled to be released in January 2007 and that the timing had nothing to do with this fall's political calendar.

I asked Justin Rood to look into the question of whether the administration is slow-rolling the report. And while there is no way to know directly, Justin found out that there is pretty strong evidence that that is just what's happening.

Democrats asked for the new NIE in July. John Negroponte, the DNI, announced on August 4th that one would be prepared. It's true that NIEs take a long time to compile. But according to a senate intel committee report last year they take between two weeks and two months to compile, depending on the urgency. So even if it were on the outside edge of that range, it should be done sometime next week.

The president says the election is supposed to be about national security. So where's the report? What's the delay? What are they afraid of?

The pyramid of lies leading to the occupation of Iraq is falling. The incompetency of the Bush administration in conducting the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq is being exposed.

[T]he religious zealots who harbored Osama bin Laden before 9/11—and who suffered devastating losses in the U.S. invasion that began five years ago next week—are surging back into the country's center. In the countryside over the past year Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and U.S. military footprint of some 40,000 soldiers, and by the weakness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration.

In Ghazni and in six provinces to the south, and in other hot spots to the east, Karzai's government barely exists outside district towns. Hard-core Taliban forces have filled the void by infiltrating from the relatively lawless tribal areas of Pakistan where they had fled at the end of 2001. Once back inside Afghanistan these committed jihadist commanders and fighters, aided by key sympathizers who had remained behind, have raised hundreds, if not thousands, of new, local recruits, many for pay. They feed on the people's disillusion with the lack of economic progress, equity and stability that Karzai's government, NATO, Washington and the international community had promised.

NATO officials say the Taliban seems to be flush with cash, thanks to the guerrillas' alliance with prosperous opium traffickers.

US officials said on Monday that American troop levels in Iraq were likely to remain well above 140,000 for the next few months, although they would not confirm reports that the 3,500-strong First Armoured Division had been ordered to remain in Iraq beyond its official tour of duty.

Growing sectarian conflict between Iraqi militias in the last few months and the continuation of the mostly Sunni insurgency against US forces has complicated the Bush administration’s goal of “standing down as the Iraqis stand up”. The overall US troop presence in Iraq has risen from 127,000 in July to 142,000 this week.

Last week John Abizaid, the US commander in the region, said that US troop deployment in Iraq was likely to remain at these levels well into 2007 in order to wrest Baghdad and other provinces from the day-to-day control of sectarian death squads and insurgent groups.

In August, General Abizaid, the most senior Arab-American in uniform who has a reputation for being a straight talker, surprised many when he told the Senate armed services committee that Iraq could be heading towards civil war. This contradicted the Bush administration’s view that the situation was gradually improving. As many as 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in 2006 – although estimates vary drastically.

The incompetence of the Bush administration is glaring enough. Yet, Bush has justified the deaths of America’s young, Iraqi and Afghan civilians and the investment of our national wealth because we are making America safer from terrorism. It is a message that a majority of Americans has accepted as true:

ABC News Poll. Sept. 5-7, 2006. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS. "Compared to before September 11, 2001, do you think the country today is safer from terrorism or less safe from terrorism?"
						.
		Safer	Less Safe	No Differ- ence (vol.)	Unsure
		%	%	%	%
	9/5-7/06	55	37	6	2
	6/22-25/06	59	33	7	1
	3/2-5/06	56	35	8	1
	1/23-26/06	64	30	6	-

In a stunning revelation, Bush hid the National Intelligence Estimate of 16 of his own agencies specializing in terrorism that conclude the occupation in Iraq has generated more terrorists and America is not safer today:

As President Bush comes off a series of speeches designed to reassure the American people, a classified report from the nation's 16 spy agencies tells a different story.

According to an estimate from the National Intelligence Council, the war in Iraq is making the threat of terrorism worse.

America is less safe today than it was after Sept. 11, 2001, because the conflict is creating more extremists.

"The war in Iraq has exasperated the global war on terror," said Robert Hutchings, the council's former chairman.

Within hours of the NIE, Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste (ret) who served in Iraq delivered a stunning assessment of Mr. Bush’s war and occupation:

The conduct of the Iraq war fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe and created more enemies for the United States, a retired U.S. Army general who served in the conflict said on Monday.

The views of retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste buttressed an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies, which intelligence officials said concluded the war had inspired Islamist extremists and made the militant movement more dangerous.

The Iraq conflict, which began in March 2003, made "America arguably less safe now than it was on September 11, 2001," Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, told a hearing on the war called by U.S. Senate Democrats.

"If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents," Batiste said.

Batiste, who was among retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier this year, poured scorn on the war plan along with two other retired military men at the Democrat-sponsored session.

They said the Pentagon let the insurgency develop by not sending enough U.S. troops, and created thousands more enemies with abusive treatment of mostly innocent detainees.

Fabricated the reasons for going to war in Iraq
Incompetently managed the occupation and
Ignited a new wave of global terrorists, imperiling the security of the United States for generations to come.

Pondering about what the Bush regime has spent billions on in Iraq for no apparent purpose – some 14+ permanent Forward Operations Bases (FOBs) now spotted around that country – a back of the mind thought came along.

The FOBs, manned by logistical (not combat) troops, could become the Imperial Design Force (IDF) for the US to spread its power in a number of key countries (no, not North Korea – just bomb them into oblivion – not worth any real trouble – no oil).

By eating what until now looks like Forbidden Fruit in Iraq (i.e., removing several divisions), the Administration could free up a good 100k troops (although force levels would remain a problem), ready to be used to invade say, Iran, or say, Saudi or say the Emirates...or say, Venezuela (provided we establish similar FOB staging areas in one other significant S/Central American country). The process would probably take another year of a holding pattern in Iraq....In the meantime, we could menace Iran, bomb a bit, keep the kettle boiling, and then airdrop troops on key zones in Iran...to be followed with setting up more FOBs in Iran...Kazakhstan and some of the other oil-producing Stans would also be within striking distance, wouldn't they?

Could we already be creating an FOB presence in Georgia, since that country hosts the recently completed BP pipeline, adjoins oily Azerbaijan, fronts the Caspian, with Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan right out there? IPI at one point posited Caspian region reserves to be in the 350 Bn barrel zone, revised downward (without great explanation) to 120 Bn or so -- still quite a prize. Lots of gas, too. NB: The president of Georgia, Mikhail S., is a Columbia Law School Grad, if I'm not mistaken, and the US is his bulwark against the Russians across the border.

Could this possibly be Bush the Failed Oilman's attempt to drill something less than a dry well at last, now that he is servicing the big boys? Think of it – all those no-bid contracts for Bechtel, Halliburton, BP, Exxon, and the others. With God on his side, what's a few hundred thousand dead, among them a few tens of thousands from the US?

*Mal Dumond is the nom de plume for a journalist of impeccable national credentials with a Renaissance mind and a passion for the Democratic Party.

Dumond’s hypothesis is not far fetched. Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner (Ret.) recently stated on CNN that the US is already conducting military operations inside Iran. “Gardiner, who taught at the U.S. Army’s National War College, has previously suggested that U.S. forces were already on the ground in Iran. Today he added several additional new points: 1) The House Committee on Emerging Threats recently called on State and Defense Department officials to testify on whether U.S. forces were in Iran. The officials didn’t come to the hearing; 2) “We have learned from Time magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step; and 3) “The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House that means we’ve gone to a different state.””

In a counter ominous move, Russia has started military exercises that signal its intent to act if the United States initiates a war in Iran. “The Russian military recently held its annual RUBEZH ("Border") maneuver in the Caspian Sea region. The Iranian website Baztab, affiliated with Expediency Council Secretary and former Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezai, presented the maneuver, based on a report in the Central Asian press, as aiming to prepare the Russian army to respond to a possible U.S. military assault on Iran “

Mal Dumond’s article above adroitly notes that Americans have spent extraordinary sums on occupying Iraq. Yet, Bush’s occupation of Iraq continues its death spiral (emphasis added).

Violence killed nearly 6,600 Iraqi civilians during July and August, while more than 8,000 were wounded, according to a report released Wednesday by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq.

More than 20,600 Iraqi civilians have died in attacks so far this year, according to UNAMI. . . .

2,689 U.S. military personnel, including seven American civilian contractors, have died in the Iraq war.

A U.S. military spokesman pointed to a spike in murders and executions in Baghdad during the past week and said it fits a pattern generally seen before the holy month of Ramadan, which begins this weekend.

"That's obviously of great concern to everyone and something that's being looked at carefully," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Wednesday.

Bush’s position is that “Americans will stand down as the Iraqis stand up.” It is, however, a matter that the Iraqis have not yet shown up (emphasis added):

The U.S. needs 3,000 more Iraqi forces to join the battle in Baghdad, but requests have not been met because Iraqi soldiers are reluctant to leave their home regions, the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad said Friday.

Maj. Gen. James Thurman said that while the U.S. has 15,000 troops in Baghdad -- which military leaders say is the priority battlefront in Iraq -- only about 9,000 Iraqi soldiers are there. That is just a fraction of the 128,000 Iraqi Army troops that the U.S. says are now trained and equipped.

His comments came as the sectarian violence in Baghdad continued unabated. . . .

Thurman said he asked for the additional Iraqi forces -- a total of six battalions -- early on in the Baghdad campaign, which began in June. He added, "I don't think putting more coalition (troops) in here is the right answer."

As deaths and carnage rise, so does the cost of Bush’s occupation. Republican dominated committees in Congress have just approved another $70 Billion Dollars to fund the occupation.

House-Senate negotiators Thursday approved a new $70 billion infusion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as they wrapped up talks on a $447 billion Pentagon funding bill.

The additional war funds would bring the total approved by Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001, to more than $500 billion, with another installment likely to come next spring.

At the same time, the White House beat back an attempt by Republicans on the appropriations committees to take an additional $2 billion from defense programs to ease cuts to domestic programs.

Americans keep sacrificing our young citizens and as Bush keeps running America into greater debt to pay for this occupation. Bush’s believes that it is a matter of Iraqis “standing up,” when it is a matter of Iraqis are not even showing up.

As reflected in the two articles above, Bush and the neoconservatives are laying the plans for conquest in Iran while Iraq the occupation in Iraq has led to civil war. It has all been done to bring “freedom” and to “fight the war against terrorism.”

Progressive Democrats have been making the case that Bush’s war in Iraq and its subsequent occupation has given rise to even more terrorism. According to American terrorism experts, progressive Democrats are correct.

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

So much for the “fly paper” theory; fight them in Iraq or fight them here as espoused by the neoconservatives. This article is simply a must read.

Tumble Weed (Bush) Watch