![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Joe Conason: From Gates, Belated Truths About IraqPosted on Dec 7, 2006By Joe Conason If nothing else can be said for Robert Gates, he seems to have learned that the appearance of honesty is preferable to blatant attempts at deception. Asked at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee whether he believes that the United States is “winning” the war in Iraq, Gates said no. That forthright admission contrasted sharply with the response of President George W. Bush when a reporter posed the same question at his Oct. 25 press conference. “We’re winning, and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done,” declared the president. He made those claims almost two weeks before the midterm election and exactly two weeks before his sacrifice of Donald Rumsfeld, but his press secretary reiterated them after Gates’ moment of truth. During his confirmation hearing, Gates also offered a sensible review of the worst mistakes since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, from the initial failure to deploy an adequate number of coalition troops to the excessive reprisals against former members of the deposed dictator’s Baath Party and the reckless demobilization of the Iraqi army. Yet despite his thoughtful tone and refreshing candor, there is little reason to believe that his arrival at the Pentagon will mark a significant change in American policy toward Iraq. Nor will the bipartisan mush emerging from the Iraq Study Group, which included Gates until his nomination was announced, promote useful new directions. For as the nominee dutifully noted in his testimony, the president will remain in charge no matter what Gates thinks or says. And so far, the president shows no sign of adopting a realistic attitude toward this tragic Middle East misadventure. Indeed, the Bush administration essentially refuses to deal with the most basic issues in Iraq, preferring to pretend that the main obstacle to progress is the level of training provided to that nation’s new army and police forces. The problems are much more fundamental than techniques or tactics, beginning with the conflict between the president and the most powerful Iraqi politicians over the future shape of the Iraqi state. There is not much reason to believe that the leaders of Iraq’s ethnic and religious factions, having incited their followers into a civil war, share the Bush vision of a democratic, unified and moderate nation that governs and defends itself. Nor is there much reason to think that coalition troops encourage Iraqi leaders to resolve their differences peacefully. Instead, the various Shiite and Sunni factions use the American presence as leverage against each other, without hesitating to denounce the U.S. occupation whenever the urge comes over them. A timetable for withdrawal of the coalition troops may be the only demand agreed to by all parties (except the Kurds), as well as the great majority of Iraqi citizens. War enthusiasts in Washington, such as Sen. John McCain, still insist that we should send more troops rather than start to bring them home, ignoring the inconvenient shortage of additional Marines and soldiers ready for combat. The latest glimmer of an exit strategy appeared, of all places, in a curious classified memo authored by Rumsfeld, of all people, that someone leaked to the New York Times. While several senators wondered why he had neglected to reveal his urge to change course over the past several months, Rumsfeld’s tardy list of policy options included at least one potentially useful suggestion. The United States might just start to pull out some troops, he wrote, “so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.” What Rummy’s silly phrase could mean is placing the withdrawal of U.S. troops on the bargaining table in broader negotiations—not only among Iraqi factions, but also between Iraq and its neighbors. Convened under the aegis of the Iraqi government, formal talks could bring together the armed factions, including representatives of the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias, with the promise that a cease-fire and settlement would lead to a timetable for American departure. Similar discussions could also take place between the Iraqi government and its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, with the same incentive for those states to assist in peacemaking. That might allow the United States to leave Iraq without making undue concessions to the Iranians and Syrians. Whether a negotiated exit can be achieved is uncertain, of course, and perhaps unlikely. But that is the best way out of a war that our leaders have been forced at last to admit we are not winning. Previous item: Ellen Goodman: Some Things Do Not Pass Next item: Marie Cocco: Our Most Vulgar Instinct Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By jon eden, December 10, 2006 at 8:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
That Gates’ acknowledgment of the blindingly obvious about the most important issue before us is haled as such a positive development is not a positive sign for the state of our governance.
Report thisBy Jackie T. Gabel, December 10, 2006 at 12:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Pertinent contribution by the foremost expert on state-sponsored terrorism:
Wed. Dec. 6
Webster G. Tarpley
Washington DC
In the final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, Lawrence Walsh left little doubt that he believed Gates had given perjured testimony during that investigation. But Walsh concluded that the matters involved were so complicated that it would be very difficult to prove them before a jury. For this reason and for no other, Gates did not face criminal charges for perjury.
Most damning of all is the fact that Gates was one of the founders of al Qaeda, the CIA’s Arab Legion which was assembled to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan. Gates is thus part of the infrastructure that produced the patsies of 9/11:
According to former CIA Director Robert Gates’s memoir From the Shadows, the big expansion of the US covert operation in Afghanistan began in 1984. During this year, “the size of the CIA’s covert program to help the Mujaheddin increased several times over,” reaching a level of about $500 million in US and Saudi payments funneled through the Zia regime in Pakistan. As Gates recalled, “it was during this period [1985] that we began to learn of a significant increase in the number of Arab nationals from other countries who had traveled to Afghanistan to fight in the Holy War against the Soviets. They came from Syria, Iraq, Algeria, and elsewhere, and most fought with the Islamic fundamentalist Muj groups, particularly that headed by Abdul Resaul Sayyaf. We examined ways to increase their participation, perhaps in the form of some sort of ‘international brigade,’ but nothing came of it. Years later, these fundamentalist fighters trained by the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan would begin to show up around the world, from the Middle East to New York City, still fighting their Holy War – only now including the United States among their enemies. Our mission was to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. We expected a post-Soviet Afghanistan to be ugly, but never considered that it would become a haven for terrorists operating worldwide.” (Gates 349) But the international brigade Gates talked about was in fact created – as the group now known as al Qaeda. (Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, pp.139-140 )
This is the same al Qaeda which provided the troupe of patsies, psychotics, and double agents (bin Laden, Atta, Moussaoui, etc.) which were used to pin the 9/11 attacks on Arabs and Moslems – instead of the US bankers’ rogue network which actually carried out 9/11 for geopolitical reasons. Gates is up to his ears in the terror apparatus of this rogue network, the September criminals who created 9/11.
There can be no question of approving such a candidate. Even the Senate’s willingness to hold hearings for so compromised a figure amounts to an obscene farce. In the recent election, Democrats campaigned against the rubber-stamp Republican Congress. These same Democrats dare not rubber stamp the Gates nomination now. In particular, Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate are reminded that if they fail to filibuster Gates, the aroused anti-war base of the Democratic Party will demand accountability on the campaign trail. We do not want bi-partisan sellouts, but rather a real opposition to the Bush regime and its crimes. Above all, we want 9/11 truth as the essential precondition for restoring lawful government.
Internet posting, thanks to Reprehensor—complete posting and comments at
Report thishttp://www.911blogger.com/node/4864
By bloomfld, December 9, 2006 at 4:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Of course, the recommendations in this report are worthless when the president of the United States, as is currently George W. Bush, is the one who gets to “decides"what happens”. Hello!
Report thisthe president is not well and should be removed from office per the 25th ammendment. Then Dick(war criminal)Cheney must be impeached, along with Alberto Gonzales and the rest of the criminals that have perpetrated this crime. The prez will have to be kept under constant medication, as is usually what happens. Impeachgment is what should happen, but the system has been so corrupted that it is naive to think that justice will be done. It’s just too sad. I’m sure glad that I don’t have chrildren.
By rolland carpenter, December 8, 2006 at 6:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Congress has absolute control over the Iraq war. It’s called “funding”. They should demand to be told the amount needed to safely withdraw our troops, then appropriate that amount and no more.
Report thisBy DennisD, December 8, 2006 at 4:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Gates agreeing that “chaos” is really “chaos” doesn’t mean much. The only thing that matters is action. I don’t know how this country transformed seemingly overnight from a republic to a dictatorship where the will of one man, no matter how deluded, overrides everything else. Bush Inc. should be “fast tracked” to impeachment.
Report thisPoliticians from both parties willing to state the obvious do not solve the problem. Either stand up and be counted or resign and let someone else do the job. Get rid of this guy and his cronies. The American people have had enough.
Another day, another lie, democracy dies.
By Margaret Currey, December 8, 2006 at 12:26 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
No matter what Gates or any commission says this King George is going to do what he wants, just because the Democrats won the House does not mean anything, the dictator has the veto power and he has his singing statements, the only thing the House can do is start impeachment hearings from the jump, otherwise, like I said this dictator is going to do what he wants and his underdictator Chaney will tell him what to do all the way.
Impeach, Impeach, Impeach.
Margaret from Vancouver, Washington
Report this