We all know the litany of (false) reasons for the invasion of Iraq; WMD, Al Qaida, liberate the people, protect the oil revenues. And, yes, Bush has linked Iran and Iraq together before. But that link, as charter members of the “Axis of Evil” (which includes North Korea) was much looser and much more symbolic. However, with the increase in violence in Iraq brought about by the civil war – a direct result of our invasion and creation of a power vacuum – Bush and Company realized that they were going to need a new narrative for their continuing plan to colonize that country. Knowing that, due to the hostage crisis in 1979, the American people already harbor bad feelings toward Iran, they are hoping it won’t be a difficult task to convince them that, in fact, it is our presence in Iraq that is keeping Iran from invading and setting up a new Iranian satellite as part of their ultimate goal to become the primary power in the Middle East.
With the recent mid-term elections behind us and with polling that indicates the American people are no longer accepting the original Bush arguments for the invasion and occupation, there is much talk (hope?) about the new Congress forcing a withdrawal of American troops from the center of the Iraqi civil war. Some have suggested that we withdraw to the borders to become, if you will, a security ring so that the Iraqis may fight it out amongst themselves without fear of outside interference. Others have suggested that we simply come home having accomplished all of the things listed above. However, if you listen to the “debate” that is taking place today, the “frame” in which all discussion is taking place centers on Iranq. The most heard phrase coming out of Washington DC is, “The risk of defeat would be catastrophic.” And just what is that risk (as if there is any such thing as victory)? There is the ongoing and nebulous “the terrorists win” prattle of course; but more and more it is “the expansion of Iran”. That’s right; George Bush is now deliberately linking our presence in Iraq to the threat of Iranian expansion in the Middle East. Take this from Bush’s recent “escalation speech”, “"Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.” “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces.” Perhaps not so coincidently, within days of those words, US forces in Iraq raided the Iranian consulate there and are still holding five “suspects.” We may never know what, if anything was retrieved in that raid but it is enough to know that we must have had reason to be worried. Add to that the fact that Bush has deployed yet another aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf just to “keep Iran in check.” In recent days on Capitol Hill, witness after witness as well as law makers of both parties have expressed concerns over Iran’s intentions “IF” we leave Iraq.
So before you get too excited about the prospect of a new Democratic majority putting an end to the debacle in Iraq, you might want to drop them a line to remind them that there is no such place as Iranq.
[UPDATE - 01/17/07]
"“We do have vital national security interests in Iraq,” declared (Hillary) Clinton. “Al Anbar province is the staging ground for attacks by the Sunni insurgency and al Qaida in Iraq. Both are directed at us. We have vital national security interests with respect to what Iran is doing in crossing the border. We have a commitment to the future and the safety of the Kurdish people. There’s a lot that we still have as part of our ongoing obligations that are in Americans interests, as well as the interest of the people of Iraq.”
She also said, “I’m not going to support a specific deadline” for getting U.S. forces out of Iraq, but she does support phased withdrawal at some point in the future."
Might be too late for Senator Clinton.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
0 comments:
Post a Comment