VoteVets.org is correct. I did ask for it. I am grateful that, with thanks to them, here it is. Last week, when George W. Bush accused Congress of not listening to the Generals on the ground in Iraq, I immediately thought of the many Generals released by this Administration, merely because they dared to disagree with the neoconservative, opportunistic, capitalistic George W. Bush directive.
Dear reader, you too may recall. The President of the United States has routinely rejected the wisdom of warriors when they did not say what he wanted to hear.
Jay Garner, the US general abruptly dismissed as Iraq's first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed programme of privatisation.
In an interview to be broadcast on BBC Newsnight tonight, he says: "My preference was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can, and do it with some form of elections ... I just thought it was necessary to rapidly get the Iraqis in charge of their destiny."
Asked by the reporter Greg Palast if he foresaw negative repercussions from the subsequent US imposition of mass privatisation, Gen Garner said: "I don't know ... we'll just have to wait and see." It would have been better for the Iraqis to take decisions themselves, even if they made mistakes, he said.
"What I was trying to do was get to a functioning government ... We as Americans like to put our template on things. And our template's good, but it's not necessarily good for everyone else."
I cannot confirm with infinite certainty whether a deep desire for oil was the cause that prompted the combat.
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.
I know not decisively whether this war was meant to serve as retribution for deeds done against the father, George Herbert Walker Bush.
From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had.
But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me.
Financial gains definitely were incurred. At least the evidence seems convincing. Friends and families profited from this horrendous battle.
The only people who are benefiting from Bush's war on terror are members of the Military Industrial Complex. Since 9/11, the pay for the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors in the US has doubled, according to the August 2006 report, "Executive Excess 2006," by the Institute for Policy Studies, and the United for a Fair Economy.
The bill is rising so fast because the level of war profiteering is unprecedented. The Excess Report lists George David, CEO of United Technologies, as the top earner, making more than $200 million since 9/11, despite investigations into the poor quality of the firm's Black Hawk helicopters.
Halliburton CEO David Lesar made $26.6 million in 2005, and nearly $50 million since 9/11, an amount that even beats the $24 million that Dick Cheney received in exchange for the guarantee that Halliburton would be the number one military contractor during the Bush administration.
Cheney himself is also taking in war profits, contrary to what he told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2003, when he denied making any money off his former employer. "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president," he said, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."
"I have no financial interest in Halliburton," Cheney told Tim, "of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."
Those statements were proven false when financial disclosure forms showed that Cheney had received a deferred salary from Halliburton of $205,298 in 2001, $262,392 in 2002, $278,437 in 2003, and $294,852 in 2004.
In 2005, an analysis released by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), reported that Cheney continued to hold over 300,000 Halliburton stock options and said their value had risen 3,281% over the previous year, from $241,498 to more than $8 million.
"It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it," Senator Lautenberg said.
Nevertheless, the conflict continues, contrary to the best advice of Generals on the ground in Iraq. Only a week ago, Bush bellowed; he told Congress "Bring it on," so that I may veto your War Funding Bill. The President cut funds for the troops. Consistent with the past, Bush declared, 'If I cannot have it my way, [without timetables or benchmarks] I will not have it at all.' You may recall the oft-repeated phrase, "You are either with us [me] or against us [me]."
President Bush acts unilaterally. He routinely ignores the pleas of the American people. As the public cries end the war and "Exit Iraq!" Bush battles on. However, times may be a changing. In this moment, Bush is somewhat conciliatory. He offers that he is considering "benchmarks" or is he.
The text of President Bush's news conference yesterday ran to nearly 10,000 words, but what may have been more significant were the things he did not say.
The president talked repeatedly about "benchmarks" for progress in Iraq, using that word 13 times. But he did not discuss the consequences of the Iraqi government missing those targets. Such a question, he said, was "hypothetical."
That response left unclear how the benchmarks would be different from previous times when the United States has set out intentions, only to back down. For example, the original war plan envisioned the U.S. troop presence in Iraq being cut to 30,000 by the fall of 2003. Last year, some top U.S. commanders thought they would be able to significantly cut the U.S. troop level in Iraq this year -- a hope now officially abandoned. More recently, the U.S. military all but withdrew from Baghdad, only to have to have to reenter the capital as security evaporated from its streets and Iraqi forces proved unable to restore calm by themselves.
President Bush also spoke several times yesterday about his flexibility, apparently as a way of countering critics calling for a major change in his approach to Iraq.
We cannot be sure what to believe when President Bush is involved. We know the pressure is on. VoteVets.org is featuring three Generals speaking out publicly against the war. Time Magazine Columnist Joe Klein reminds us,
General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible." Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's aversion to talking to people he doesn't like.
Nevertheless, we can hope. Perhaps as the pressure builds, as George continues to lose support from those that count, whomever they might be, will become a rehabilitated warmonger. One can dream.
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue, U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool. By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway. Washington Post.
Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01
pdfIn Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue, U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool. By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway. Washington Post. Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01
Bush Keeps Vow to Veto War Funding Bill, President Says Pullout Deadline Is 'Date for Failure.' By Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker. Washington Post. Wednesday, May 2, 2007; Page A01
Subscribe to Site [RSS]
