neocon proposes genocide to avoid leaving Iraq

[tocqueville]

The US administration is like the proverbial kid with a hand stuck in the cookie jar, grabbing a fistful of goodies. To get out of Iraq, Bush would have to let go of Iraq's goodies. In this case, that means letting go of Iraq's oil, and letting go of the dream that Iraq can become the anchor for a long-term US military and economic presence in the Persian Gulf region. To do so would mean a humiliating public admission of defeat - defeat for the idea of Americanizing Iraq, defeat for America's hope of establishing hegemony in the Gulf, and defeat for the neo-conservatives' determination to use military "shock and awe" tactics to intimidate potential regional rivals and opponents around the world. All of that would be gone - and in the most public way possible.

Which brings us to former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht, currently a fellow at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute. In 2002-03, Gerecht was among the loudest proponents of giving the Arabs the old shock-and-awe treatment, arguing that Iraqis, Arabs and Middle Easterners in general only understand the language of force. Writing in the Wall Street Journal this April 3, Gerecht warns bluntly that for the United States to succeed in Iraq might require far more bloody-minded tactics than have been utilized thus far. First, Gerecht notes with satisfaction that many Sunnis have been frightened and intimidated by Shi'ite militias, adding, "Sunni and Kurdish fear of Shi'ite power ... is politically overdue and healthy for all concerned." And then he gets to the heart of the matter:

The Bush administration would be wise not to postpone any longer what it should have already undertaken - securing Baghdad ... Pacifying Baghdad will be politically convulsive and provide horrific film footage and skyrocketing body counts. But Iraq cannot heal itself so long as Baghdad remains a deadly place.

Does Gerecht's proposal foreshadow a new effort, a last push, by neo-conservatives to urge the administration to "win" the war in Iraq by overwhelming force, by sending yet more US forces to engage in yet more fruitless shock-and-awe fantasies? Do Khalilzad's recent get-tough-on-Iran remarks foreshadow a neo-conservative effort to expand the losing war in Iraq into Iran itself, while casting blame on Iran for the US failure to secure or pacify Iraq? Can the United States persist in Iraq fighting not one, but two growing resistance movements? Or is it time to cut its losses? Time to cut and run?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD08Ak02.html

[stepnw1f]

1. He Who Proposes Genocide Voids His Own Life

At least in escence.

[converted_democrat]

2. I feel sick.. This just makes me sick.. n/t

[niyad]

3. so why the hell isn't this bloodthirsty bastard over there in uniform?

[WiseButAngrySara]

4. This makes me ill too. And speechless. ....n/t

[babylonsister]

5. Just who the hell does he think he is? What makes his or our

lives anymore valuable than Iraqis? I'm stumped and disgusted.

[benburch]

6. I think you fail to understand; Genocide has ALWAYS been the policy.

And it is working. We not only are killing the Iraqi's ourselves, but we have set them against each other. I believe Bush's eventual goal is the genocide of all non-Christians, be they Muslims, HIndus, Pagans, or Jews.

[Orangeone]

7. Neocons

specifically target Arabs and Muslims, not Jews and Christians.

[benburch]

8. The Jews are next.

Don't let their soothing words fool you.

[killbotfactory]

9. I guess he didn't consider

The irony of having Saddam on trial for genocide, while we commit genocide.