Skip to main content

Now, yes I am incredulous on the following statement :

American officials have been repeatedly stunned and frequently thwarted in the past three years by the extraordinary power of Muslim clerics over Iraqi society.

Absurd, of course. But, has the Bush Administration been incompetent in its conduct of the Iraq gambit ?

I was one of the ones - among at least a few - who over a year ago predicted the possible outbreak of sectarian hostilities leading to civil war in Iraq.

But as much as I dislike Vice President Cheney, I don't assume incompetence on his part. I'm not the only one.

Enter : The Cheney Plan

Wrote Dave Mason last January, '05 :

Bush is throwing the war on purpose.

It is a standard tactic in warfare to try to divide your enemy and exploit divisions among their ranks. The more time, energy, ammunition and lives they expend killing each other, the easier it becomes to conquer them, or so states the theory. Provoking a civil war is Bush's hidden strategy in Iraq.....

I really wish that I didn't have to believe this, but consider the alternatives. Either Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle, Kristol, Kagan et alia are, each and every one of them, stupendously-ignorant wingnut morons, entirely under the sway of Christian dominionism and entirely unaware of Arab, world, and military history.... Failing to give the neoconservatives credit for both: long-term planning, and knowledge of strategy & history, both: flies in the face of the evidence, and assists them in their goals. Of COURSE they want you to think they're stupid - that perception can mask your understanding of the true savagery of their intent.

So here we are. I posted on this too, last year, immediately following Dave mason's piecee ( and expanding the explanation to encompass the aims of the US Christian right )

Yes, some in the Bush Administration NeoCon faction may have intended this very outcome :  a full scale Iraqi civil war would cause American casualties to escalate and so lend compelling support to the partitioning of Iraq....

Indeed, a tripartite partitioning of Iraq, with a Kurdish state and the annexation of parts of Iraq by Jordan and Kuwait ( which presumeably would grab the richest Iraqi  oil fields ) was reported by STRATFOR and other sources to have been a pre-invasion scenario that had been under consideration by Dick Cheney - into 3 parts under the so-called "Hashemite Plan"..... Now, back on March 31, 2003,  I didn't have sufficient background.... I know far more now and feel capable of sketching this overall outline :

Prior to the invasion, the Bush Adm. Neocons had their own unique geopolitical agenda which concerned the following overall objectives


  1. establishment of US bases in Iraq and Northwest Asia - from which to fill the power vacuum in the region left following the collapse of the USSR - to  control and safeguard oil production and also project American power into Asia, in anticipation of coming conflicts in that theatre. That rightly should be termed the "Grand Chessboard" strategy,  in honor of Zbigniew Brzezinski's book of that name, that was really "The Great Game" of the British and Russian empires  updated for the needs of a 21st Century US Global hegemony,

  2. A corollary pro-Isaeli agenda of neutralizing Iraq as a threat to Israel ( and from the Israel perspective enlisting the US army as what some have termed a "Gurkha" force in Iraq ).

  3. Profit !


Now, the first goal was overt, the second two not.  But there was another, rumored, wrinkle to the plot - The "Cheney Plan" for Iraq [ "Chop it up and give away the pieces" ]  : "...STRATFOR claims "high level" sources told "them that one of the leading long-term strategies being considered by US war planners is one that will DIVIDE Iraq into three separate regions.Under this plan Iraq would cease to exist.....this is not the only plan under consideration, he said they pointed to Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, "both considered the most hawkish of Bush administration officials," as the architects of the "Hashemite" plan."....."The new government's attempts to establish control over all of Iraq may well lead to a civil war between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish ethnic groups, with US troops caught in the middle. " "  [ emphasis mine ]

In other words, a civil war was considered, pre-invasion, to be a possible and even a probable outcome.

So, we can see a progression of events ( especially given the inadequate troops levels provided for the invasion - that all but guaranteed anarchy, looting, and the widespread destruction of infrastructure - the decomissioning of the Iraq regular army, and all of the other improbably egregious strategic post invasion blunders ) that fit orthodox expert opinions on the outcome of post-invasion occupation - a slow degeneration into anarchy, quagmire, and civil strife - which was in fact accelerated by the seemingly improbable blunders of a Bush Administration that seemed all too expert at campaigning and  domestic politics and yet also utterly incompetent at envisioning probably scenarios in Iraq and even of listening to expert opinion from trained specialists, on Iraq and the Mideast region, working for the CIA and the DOD - who generally predicted that things would not turn out so swimmingly as predicted in the administration's rosy pre-invasion pollyannish scenarios of a magical blossoming of a new democracy on the Tigris.

Now, it should be noted that the invasion and occupation filled a wide array of domestic and private objectives for the Bush Administration such as : 1) financial rewards for the military industrial complex, the oil industry, and private corporations connected to the Bush Administration such as Halliburton, Bechtel, Brown and Root, and so on, 2) consuming federal spending and thus serving to "starve" that domestic government spending so hated by the US right ( with the charge led by Grover Norquist ), 3) Reinforcing a spirit, especially on the US right, of militaristic nationalism and 4) Distraction from job loss and lackluster economic growth 5) last but not least, the electoral boost George W. Bush received from the "rally round the flag" effect.  

Those would have been most of the objectives - both acknowledged and secret - of the secular elements of the Bush Adminstration. Was insurgency, and civil war or civil strife envisioned as a bankable likelihood following a US invasion and occupation of Iraq ?  That cannot be proven, but it fits the progression of events.

Originally posted to Troutfishing on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 07:19 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I suspect... (4.00)
    that this is too analytic of a post to  get much  attention. But, thanks for reading it.
  •  Cheney's aid, Wurmser in 1996 (none)
     
    "The residual unity of the nation is an illusion projected by the extreme repression of the state." After Saddam, Iraq would "be ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects and key families," he wrote. "Underneath facades of unity enforced by state repression, [Iraq's] politics is defined primarily by tribalism, sectarianism and gang/clan-like competition." Yet Wurmser explicitly urged the United States and Israel to "expedite" such a collapse. "The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance."

    It couldn't be much clearer.

  •  They WANT the governmenal collapses. (4.00)
    Lack of a government means the corporations can move in and do pretty much whatever they like.

    Want to dump toxic waste? No problem. No environmental protection organization.

    Want to use human guinea pigs? No problem. No human rights laws.

    Want to set up hundreds of front and dummy companies? No problem. No federal trade oversight.

    And, of course, no taxes and a more-than-willing labor force since they won't have a government to provide food, safety, etc.

    This is exactly what the corporatists want- total, global anarchy so that the corporations can save the day. This is why they keep fanning the fire. This is drowning governments in bath tubs.

  •  But this makes IRAN stronger (none)
    It gives Iran all they couldn't get after a VERY costly decade of war against Iraq.

    It may be to our advantage to have an independent Kurdish state (though Turkey is not happy about that - and Sibel Edmonds seems to have some info relating to Turkey that may have something to do with things, but she's under a gag order).

    But we're clearly NOT going to have shared power in a Sunni/Shia southern state.  

    That seems destined to split - with the Sunni's losing out the most.

    So..... whither the Shias?  Will you retain a separate "Iraqi" Shia state or will you see a merger with Iran?  

    The former may be to our interest, but now seems unlikely.  EVERYONE hates us at this point.  So the expected outcome is a larger, more powerful Iranian state - and isn't THAT what we DIDN'T want?

    I expect we're seeing a simplistic "grab the oil and establish some bases" plan now falling apart when confronted with a far more complex reality.

    These people may be adept at scheming - but that doesn't make them competent in devising rational long term plans and executing them.  There's some pretty horrid scheming that's been at work here, but in the long run, it does NOTHING to help this country.  

    A simplistic "grab some oil" scenario does NOT address the fundamental issue of oil dependence and decling reserves in a world of increased demand.

    We have squandered TRILLIONS that should have been invested in planning for the future - and will be getting nothing in return (we won't even be able to secure those oil supplies).

    We have destroyed the image of the United States throughout the world, and lost any moral credibility we still had.

    We have ground up our military so that they are incapable of facing another real challenge conventionally - upping the ante substantially.  Unable to respond to a major crisis with conventional forces, we may be forced to "overkill" -  using airpower and tactical nuvclear weapons - a guaranteed route to Armageddon.

    Our "civilization" is on the brink of drastic and dramatic change - a real crisis in dealing with energy and climate change.  

    I suspect that this short-sighted Administration, incapable of thinking outside current conventions, has put us on a path that will lead to a far larger disaster than Iraq.  ANd like other collapses, people (if they survive to do so) will look back in disbelief, wondering how we were SO stupid.

    •  they want to be feared, not liked. (none)
      Real men want to go to Iran.  And they have made it exceedingly difficult not to do so.
    •  I suppose I should have qualified (none)
      My statements on "competence" :

      Successful bank robbers can also be called "competent"
      .

      •  A couple of Questions (none)
        No doubt that the Neocons have been scheming for a very long time. That surfaced during the Alito confirmations when they couldn't contain their glee at getting another "Unitary Executive" jurist on to the SCOTUS and said that they had been planning it since 1982.

        Every move that the administration has made has smacked of a hidden agenda, right down to the confrontation between the WH and the governor of Louisiana during Katrina and the proposed suspension of Posse Comitatus for the use of Federal troops in Louisiana and their current plans to disembowel the National Guard.

        International plans are another story though and there are other players on the table who should not be taken lightly... the least of which is Communist China.

        The Neocons have been stupid enough to believe that they could corrupt China with capitalism, but the Chinese have their own agenda as we have seen the current shift in the administrations stance in their direction.

        It used to be China our new trading partner... now it is the Chinese threat. China's economic and military expansion is staggering. Further they have just held joint military exercises with Russia, who has proposed a "NATO-like" organization with China and invited Iran to join with them.

        Putin just told Bush to go to hell publicly... so much for looking into his soul eh?

        Further... the Neocons have advanced, as Ronald Reagan did, that trade would bring nations together... its a fallacy.

        Britain and Germany had heavy trade going on right up until the outbreak of WWI. America's largest trading partners in the period leading up to WWII were Germany and Japan.

        Now China is diect competition for global resources that have before this time been exclusively dominated by western block interests.

        They have negotiated with Venezula and several African nations for oil leases and contracts. They have made move to dominate trade routes and even taken over the operation of the Panama canal.

        They now even produce 80% of the computer chips used in our smart weaponry and have been busy stealing our technology to the point that they have recently deployed their version of an Ageis carrier battle group.

        In short... the stage seems to be set for the resource wars and the Bushiveks are pissed! Is this part of what you see or is it chaos theory in operation?

        •  One more point (none)
          Putin has been arresting corporate owners in Russia... he intends to hold power at any costs.

          That would seem to run contrary to the idea oc corporate supremicists.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site