Also see:     
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications    [

    "The New Way Forward in Iraq" Fails on All Fronts
    By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Tuesday 25 September 2007

    After two days of Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, President Bush addressed the nation in order to explain his new strategy for going forward in Iraq. He opened his remarks with the following statement: "In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people." Truer words have never been spoken. Based upon what has been presented to date, the president's direction is backwards and the lack of character by too many of our elected officials is allowing it to continue.

    When you compare the new strategy for going forward in Iraq as articulated by President Bush this past Thursday, September 13, with the old "New Way Forward in Iraq" that he articulated on January 10, 2007, you can only conclude that "both are failures on all fronts. On January 10, 2007, President Bush's "New Iraq Strategy" was rooted in six fundamental elements:

• Let the Iraqis lead.
  
• Help Iraqis protect the population.
  
• Isolate extremists.
  
• Create space for political progress.
  
• Use diverse political and economic efforts.
  
• Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

    How can the administration claim progress or success when these fundamental elements are so general? No matrices have ever been provided to measure success, thus allowing the Bush administration to continue to change its reasoning for American involvement in Iraq as previous reasoning proves to be false. This just proves the old adage, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."

    General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were unable to provide credible evidence of any tangible, sustainable success. Petraeus showed charts and graphs to support the administration's claim of "tactical success," but the real issue is sustainability. Even Petraeus's boss, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (Centcom) is quoted by The Washington Post and Asia Times as saying "... from Day 1, this isn't working."

    During General Petraeus's two-day testimony, Brian Williams from NBC News counted 150 references to al-Qaeda. During President Bush's three-minute address to the nation, I counted 12 references to al-Qaeda. Numerous military reports and independent sources have stated, of the three enemies that American forces face in Iraq, al-Qaeda is a distant third behind Saddam's former Mukabarat and Fedayeen fighters and the Mujahideen Army of Iraq.

    The reason the president and General Petraeus want to direct public focus on al-Qaeda is that al-Qaeda has become the administration's "boogeyman." American fears and passions are easily aroused by the mention of al-Qaeda. More importantly, the other two enemies require an understanding of the civil war taking place in Iraq. The American public is less likely to support American involvement in that quagmire. Because of this, the administration uses al-Qaeda to play to America's fears in stead of explaining the realities in order to stave off eroding support. During the president's address, he stated, "Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working.... Today, a city where al-Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal.... These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference." What the president failed to discuss as a reason for this so-called progress is the "insurgent tax."

    According to McClatchy newspapers, "Iraq's deadly insurgent groups have financed their war against US troops in part with hundreds of thousands of dollars in US rebuilding funds that they've extorted from Iraqi contractors in Anbar Province.... The violence in Iraq has developed a political economy of its own that sustains it and keeps some of these terrorist groups afloat," said Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh." With this type of extortion taking place, it is easy to understand why "our strategy is working" in Anbar. American tax dollars are making sure that it does. It's also easy to understand why, "These developments do not often make the headlines." The administration does not want the American people to know how their tax dollars are being misspent.

    Senators Clinton, Obama and others have come under fire for questioning the accuracy of General Petraeus's findings. Others asserted that the general merely provided the "air cover" needed in order for President Bush to give the appearance of developing a new strategy in Iraq or a "return on success." Their questions and assertions are not totally baseless.

    Again, according to the Asia Times, "Admiral William Fallon derided Petraeus as a sycophant.... Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be 'an ass-kissing little chickenshit.'" Fallon's problems with Petraeus have to do with his agreeing in February to become the president's "front man" on Iraq. According to the Asia Times, "In a highly unusual political role for an officer, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. Senators were then approached on the floor and invited to McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the "surge" policy." These events put General Petraeus's objectivity and independence into question.

    The president has said repeatedly that he was taking his direction from the generals in the field. However, he removed those generals who disagreed with his policies.

• Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni was the Bush administration's special envoy to the Middle East until he disagreed with the war policy.
  
• Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East, was replaced for being a critic of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq.
  
• Gen. George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq, was replaced because he originally opposed the president's plan to add troops in Iraq.

    If the president replaced the generals who have disagreed with him, why should the American people put any credibility in the "Petraeus Testimony?" In fact, in a curious move, Petraeus was not even sworn in. The only generals the president seems to be concerned about are General Dynamics, General Electric and other major defense contractors.

    As the president looks toward the last 16 months of his administration and positioning the Republicans for the 2008 election, by putting General Petraeus out in front President Bush is trying to shift the face of the war and its execution away from himself and his administration over to the military. This will allow him to create an "enduring relationship" with Iraq that will keep American forces there "beyond my presidency." During last week's testimony, Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) said, "Year after year, the president and the administration have touted progress in Iraq and called for patience. It has been a litany of delusion."

    Just listen to President Bush's repeated claims of progress.

• In October 2003, he said, "We're making progress about improving the lives of people there in Iraq."
  
• In September 2004, the president said, "We're making steady progress in implementing our five-step plan."
  
• In October 2005, the president said, "Iraq has made incredible political progress."
  
• In May 2006, the president said, "We're making progress on all fronts."
  
• In March of this year, the president said, "There's been good progress."
  
• And on July Fourth, the president said, "Victory in this struggle will require more patience."

    We should never forget May 1, 2003, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln as the president stood before a sign that read "Mission Accomplished" and said, "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

    Based upon what has been presented to date, the president's direction is taking us backwards and the lack of character by too many of our elected officials is allowing it to continue. At the end of the day, Americans are being asked to make a false choice between increased security and fewer rights. Actually, it's our rights that make us more secure. "They" don't hate us because of our democracy and our freedoms; "they" hate us because of our lies, delusions and hypocrisy.

    --------

    Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "On With Leon" on XM Satellite Radio Channel 169;a regular guest on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight; Producer/Host of the television program "Inside The Issues With Wilmer Leon," and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, DC. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.