The Iraq War: withdrawal or escalation
The coalition now appears to have arrived at a critical moment in their misadventure in Iraq, recently characterised as " the greatest strategic disaster in US history" by Lieutenant - General Odom. Despite serial destruction of Iraqi towns and the discharging of something like 100,000 bullets per resistance fighter they are no where near to being in control of the situation on the ground; nor are they likely to be. Being caught red-handed carrying out terrorist bombings doesn't help but perhaps those astounding events in Basra may have, in a perverse way, shown a way forward for the hapless coalition: they can blame there misfortunes in Iraq on the Iranians and thereby escalate the conflict burying failure in Iraq in the rubble of a greater middle east war.
Of course, the idea of attacking Iran is not new and much has already been accomplished in terms of preparing the terrain. Iran has for some time been assiduously courted as the next victim of the US/ UK rampage through the Middle East in what looks remarkably like a rerun of the ouvertures to Iraq in the run up to 2003's fateful invasion. However there is a feeling of spontaneity and improvisation here as the good Brits show they're no slouches when it comes to raising the ante; disaster has been turned into opportunity. All pointers now indicate that, mad as it is, our leaders are close to embarking on a venture even more reckless and dangerous than the Iraq debacle itself.
The only way to make sense of this is to examine the alternatives, or rather, the alternative. Withdrawal from Iraq following the necesary humiliating negotiations with "the terrorists" to enable safe passage out would mean nothing less than the end of the globalisation project, the collapse of the dollar and the collapse of US/UK credibility. It would also leave the architects of this war facing the abyss. The neocons have constituted themselves as the "no way back tendency": they've put all their eggs in the basket of "war without end" and anything so much as a whiff of peace would leave them reeling as from the effects of some alien and toxic vapour. Peace is not an option. Nor is defeat in Iraq; but that is inevitable. So escalation it is. This infernal logic can only be undone through a revolution against the war party.
There has been a recent flurry of troops out activity but the slogan "troops out of iraq" is almost a bit dated now: we're onto the next phase and the antiwar movement must concentrate on stopping the drive towards a greater war. The consequences of an attack are unknowable but it seems reasonable to regard ourselves as being in a pre-World War III scenario. Of course, virtually the entire human race will oppose such madness but it could be too late by then. We have to highlight the danger now in the hope that somehow it can be stopped.
The coalition now appears to have arrived at a critical moment in their misadventure in Iraq, recently characterised as " the greatest strategic disaster in US history" by Lieutenant - General Odom. Despite serial destruction of Iraqi towns and the discharging of something like 100,000 bullets per resistance fighter they are no where near to being in control of the situation on the ground; nor are they likely to be. Being caught red-handed carrying out terrorist bombings doesn't help but perhaps those astounding events in Basra may have, in a perverse way, shown a way forward for the hapless coalition: they can blame there misfortunes in Iraq on the Iranians and thereby escalate the conflict burying failure in Iraq in the rubble of a greater middle east war.
Of course, the idea of attacking Iran is not new and much has already been accomplished in terms of preparing the terrain. Iran has for some time been assiduously courted as the next victim of the US/ UK rampage through the Middle East in what looks remarkably like a rerun of the ouvertures to Iraq in the run up to 2003's fateful invasion. However there is a feeling of spontaneity and improvisation here as the good Brits show they're no slouches when it comes to raising the ante; disaster has been turned into opportunity. All pointers now indicate that, mad as it is, our leaders are close to embarking on a venture even more reckless and dangerous than the Iraq debacle itself.
The only way to make sense of this is to examine the alternatives, or rather, the alternative. Withdrawal from Iraq following the necesary humiliating negotiations with "the terrorists" to enable safe passage out would mean nothing less than the end of the globalisation project, the collapse of the dollar and the collapse of US/UK credibility. It would also leave the architects of this war facing the abyss. The neocons have constituted themselves as the "no way back tendency": they've put all their eggs in the basket of "war without end" and anything so much as a whiff of peace would leave them reeling as from the effects of some alien and toxic vapour. Peace is not an option. Nor is defeat in Iraq; but that is inevitable. So escalation it is. This infernal logic can only be undone through a revolution against the war party.
There has been a recent flurry of troops out activity but the slogan "troops out of iraq" is almost a bit dated now: we're onto the next phase and the antiwar movement must concentrate on stopping the drive towards a greater war. The consequences of an attack are unknowable but it seems reasonable to regard ourselves as being in a pre-World War III scenario. Of course, virtually the entire human race will oppose such madness but it could be too late by then. We have to highlight the danger now in the hope that somehow it can be stopped.
Comments
Display the following comment