George W. Bush is
about to take us deeper into the deserts of the Middle East by way of
establishing his New Jonestown, a group of military bases in Iraq from where
America can impart order and democracy for the region, from the Tora Bora
mountains of Afghan lands to the menacing Arab neighbors that surround Israel.
This is the current
military version of the string of forts established during the 19th century in
the Indian territories of North America by the US in its westward march -- from
where Washington�s economic and geo-political interests, as well as the private
interests of the white colonists, could be protected by cannon or by a charging
American enclaves in the Middle East New Jonestown, however, likely will evoke
unpleasant memories -- too many of us remember the fate of Jim Jones and his
Peoples Temple followers in northwestern Guyana. But whatever name we care to
use, the end result is bound to be the same under the mandate of our own
drug-laced Kool-Aid Provider-in-Chief. Or . . . will it turn out to be
Here we are in the
Valley of the Dolts, dumb and happy, submerged in the recurring duopolistic
political discussion speaking in the tongues of idiocy and supine ignorance,
while we waited for academically polished General Petraeus to perform bishopric
confirmation on us. (Bush�s sacramental orders). Yet we talked about this papal
messenger and his deacon, Ambassador Crocker, as if they were really going to
have anything to say which may lack the White House�s imprimatur. Is this dumb
You needn�t be a
student of military history, nor hold a diploma from any military war college,
to reach the conclusion that a substantial increase in military field
operations against resisters in specific areas of an occupied nation will have
some positive results. But to keep Iraq in a modicum of peace, sufficient to
keep civil order and allow the implementation of a reconstruction program, the
US would have to make available much of its active duty military (exclusive of
national guard or reservists). The tokenish 30,000 troops added for the surge
represented nothing more than a political maneuver for Bush, and a conversation
topic for military and non-military media gurus to display their consummate
ignorance as to why the United States remains entangled there.
progress reports, passing on the blame to Nuri al-Maliki and his corrupt
government, lying assertions of how things are improving in Iraq, the non-stop
shell game White House and Congress are playing with us . . . oh what fools
we�re made out to be!
Is it so difficult
to see? The US is in Iraq for the duration, and that means indefinitely: same
presence as in Korea, or Europe or anywhere else it needs to be for strategic
or symbolic points of dominance. America�s stay in Iraq is by no means a
latter-day decision, even if it�s readily interpreted as just a face-saving
device for Bush. Why would any of us think the US has spent billions of dollars
on military bases, or built such an embassy-fortress? The long-term plans for
oil and military control of Iraq are likely to be the same as they were
pre-invasion, regardless our being Keystone Kops inept.
Bush�s legacy has
already been written in India ink in much of the world, even if for our own
domestic consumption much of the US population continues in denial, not quite
yet ready to accept any share in the criminal complicity for invading Iraq. An
international formal verdict of Bush�s war criminality remains to be rendered
by an international court of law, one both competent and willing to take on an
unsubdued tyrant, something for which there�s no precedent at this
tyrant-scale; for informally, the guilty verdict is already in on genocidal
grounds, just ask the mourning relatives of the million-plus dead Iraqis.
Bush�s final act of
this badly scripted Iraq farce requires the return of the prodigal sons to the
imperial fold: those Democrats in Congress who insist on bringing the troops
home, now! And he is already achieving sufficient success by shifting gears and
taking a diversionary path via Iran. Even moderately reasonable legislators,
such as Bryan Baird -- who happens to be my representative in Congress -- have
bought into the idea that Iran must be stopped. Many of us are unsure just what
Iran�s illegitimate deeds are.
The war juggernaut
is building momentum with enough bipartisanship to make it real. It�s becoming
quite clear America is getting ready for a new bipartisan crime against peace,
and this time the sacrificial lamb will be Iran. Perhaps the US can use as an
excuse non-payment of the just rendered $2.65 billion judgment against that
nation by Reagan-appointed Judge Lamberth on behalf of the families of 241 US
service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the US marine barracks in Beirut.
But then again, a school bully needs no excuses to beat up someone or take his
If the American
public doesn�t buy into a continuance, maybe even an upgrade, of the escalation
in Iraq, bombing Iran to smithereens will yield the desired results. Since the
US doesn�t have the required military grunts to invade the Persian lands, not
without bringing back the draft, Americans will quickly have to accept the
notion that this nation �needs� permanent bases in Iraq.
A few months ago I
didn�t think the bombing of Iran would take place until the start of our own
economic bloodbath. Now I am not so sure. Of course, the economic blood letting
which has already started will accelerate by year�s end, so Washington will
have yet another reason to triple-up on the war; and, one gets the feeling, it
will be done with bipartisan support.
Is America becoming
the Peoples Temple and Bush a reincarnated Jim Jones? Why are Americans so
eager to drink his lies-laced Kool-Aid?
� 2007 Ben Tanosborn
Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA),
where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at email@example.com.