October 24, 2003
Reading the Tea Leaves
The US press completely passed on a very important sign that the hawks in the Bush administration are becoming more, not less important these days.
Syria Policy Reveals Neocon Power
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet
October 22, 2003
In the clamor over Iraq in September was a significant White House appointment that went entirely unnoticed in the U.S. media. The appointment of David Wurmser as Dick Cheney's adviser on the Middle East last month was an ominous sign of the continuing dominance of neoconservatives over George Bush's foreign policy, despite his plunging poll numbers and widespread criticism over Iraq.
With the vice-president increasingly seen as the dominant force shaping U.S. foreign policy – often publicly contradicing his own president's attempts to soften his "axis of evil" rhetoric – Wurmser's new post spells bad news for the Baath-led government of Syria. Since the mid-1990s, he has written frequently in support of a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to undermine then- President Hafez Assad in hopes of destroying Baathist rule, hastening the creation of a new regional order dominated by "tribal, familial, and clan unions under limited governments." His new boss is none other than Cheney's powerful national security director, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
What is amazing about this story is that it has not even been covered by our press, much less than the European press, but was picked up by the Islamic and Asian press. Does this mean we will find ourselves at war with Syria before the 2004 election?
(tip via Tristero)
Posted by Mary at October 24, 2003 03:20 PM | TrackBackDoes this mean we will find ourselves at war with Syria before the 2004 election?
Only if GWB is invulnerable at that time or needs a new war to prop up sagging poll numbers.
As pessimistic as I've become, I think not. Why?
- Insufficinet numbers of military personnel with appropriate training or equipment
- absence of an awkward sanctions endgame with respect to Syria or Iran
- absence of oil rents in Syria
Would GWB attack if his poll numbers sagged? I certainly wouldn't put it past him. However, I do think the above items have explained some immediate, insuperable reasons why he is unlikely to do so. Some other reasons include the fact that his optimistic projections of money raised to prosecute war have actually failed to materialize , but we've seen how that is being spun into obfuscation.
Posted by: James R MacLean on October 26, 2003 03:04 AMJames - you are looking at this as would a rational and sane person. GWB consults his "gut." The PNAC folks want to forge ahead with making the US the most powerful and feared nation on earth. The GOP will do anything it takes to retain power.
The US still has plenty of ordinance and could easily bomb Syria and Iran. The lack of troop strength is irrelevant because they do not want to occupy Syria and Iraq.
Posted by: Marie on October 26, 2003 07:55 AMI agree with you 100% on the matter of the irrationality of the administration. I also agree with you about its lack of scruples. That's why I cited reasons I felt made such an effort virtually impossible. Of course, there's always the Jack D. Ripper strategy...
So yes, I would have to begin any analysis with the assumption that your statements are correct. Doing so, I would look elsewhere for really bad stuff.
Posted by: James R MacLean on October 27, 2003 12:19 AMFrom Juan Cole:
Wesley Clark Calls for Criminal Investigation of Bush Iraq policyIf you haven't paid him a visit, Juan Cole is really on top of events. But here he explains the implications of the unpleasant surprises Cheney, et al face today:Presidential hopeful Gen. Wesley Clark said Friday he believes the Bush administration should be investigated for possible criminal wrongdoing in the case it made to the American people that Iraq was an immediate threat, according to the Telegraph. He said an independent counsel should look into the possible manipulation of intelligence. The pre-released text of his speech said, "Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than consciously to make a case for war based on false claims. We need to know if we were intentionally deceived. This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority. That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting."
Clark said in his memoirs that he was told by a military officer in fall of 2001 that the Bush administration intended to go to war against Iraq and that this was part of a 5-year plan to attack 7 countries. "This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp."
...Moreover, with 130,000 US troops pinned down in Iraq, the US simply doesn't have the military capacity to attack and hold Iran. (Rumsfeld may have insisted the brass take Iraq with so few troops to prove that future such missions, e.g. to Tehran and Damascus, could also be accomplished with only 7 or 8 divisions, since he knew that after Iraq he was unlikely to have the 13 or 14 divisions the Pentagon officer corps preferred for such missions. Ironically, his insistence on such a small force may well have derailed the later plans, since the US troops were not numerous enough to establish order in post-Baath Iraq and so got bogged down. Rumsfeld had hoped to get all but a division or so back out by fall of 2003, i.e., by about now. Instead, he still has 130,000 troops tied up in Iraq and is having to call up an extra division of reserves).Posted by: James R MacLean on October 27, 2003 02:41 PMIf the hawks in Defense have to postpone their plans to Deal With Tehran, then the only alternative is to send in the State Department to find some way to trade some horses and get relations with the mullahs back to some semblance of normalcy. Instead of acting like a Revolutionary Power (Kissinger's characterization of France under the Revolutionary and Napoleonic regimes) in the Middle East, as planned, the US might have to go back to being a status quo power. Even if Bush wins again in 2004, it is not clear that it will have the military resources to go after Iran, Syria and the others on the list. That will only be possible if a stable government with its own effective military emerges in Iraq in the short term, which is capable of blunting further Iranian moves.
Such a pages give mental pabulum. You're good guys because you do this.