Maybe Bush has already achieved victory in Iraq

December 31, 2006 | By | 5 Replies More

A friend of mine recently gave me a disturbing scenario:  what if Iraq has descended into civil war because Bush and his neo-con puppetmasters want it that way?  What if Bush’s repeated failures to end the violence aren’t failures at all, but rather the desired result?  Consider:  the continued violence keeps federal money pouring into the pockets of Bush’s neo-con and military contractor supporters, so they’re happy; the political situation is in chaos, so Iraqi oil remains in the hands of Bush’s oil pals, so they’re happy; Muslims are killing each other in large numbers, so Bush’s radical Christian supporters are happy; Bush’s elite-rich supporters don’t have sons or daughters dying to provide cheap gasoline for their SUVs, so they’re happy…so, who among Bush’s core supporters is bothered by a protracted war in Iraq?  What if they are perfectly happy with the way things are going and that’s the reason for Bush’s “stay the course” rhetoric in the face of an ongoing slaughter?

Remember:  they lied to get us into this mess, so why wouldn’t they lie to keep us there?


Category: Uncategorized

About the Author ()

Grumpypilgrim is a writer and management consultant living in Madison, WI. He has several scientific degrees, including a recent master’s degree from MIT. He has also held several professional career positions, none of which has been in a field in which he ever took a university course. Grumps is an avid cyclist and, for many years now, has traveled more annual miles by bicycle than by car…and he wishes more people (for the health of both themselves and our planet) would do the same. Grumps is an enthusiastic advocate of life-long learning, healthy living and political awareness. He is single, and provides a loving home for abused and abandoned bicycles. Grumpy’s email: grumpypilgrim(AT)@gmail(DOT).com [Erich’s note: Grumpy asked that his email be encrypted this way to deter spam. If you want to write to him, drop out the parentheticals in the above address].

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erich Vieth says:

    I suspect that a lot of Bush supporters are declaring victory simply because our troops have begun the occupation of Iraq, not matter what mayhem occurs under our watch. We're still building those 14 permanent bases in Iraq and no Bush Administration representative has ever suggested that the U.S. will ever leave Iraq. Apparently, we're going to remain in Iraq as long as it takes to protect "our" oil.

  2. hogiemo says:

    You dudes are more spooky paranoid than I am. Bush is just another corporatist facist nincompoop. My hats off to you!

  3. grumpypilgrim says:

    Responding to hogiemo's comment: Bush may be an imbecile, but his handlers aren't. Cheney & Rumsfeld cut their political teeth working for Nixon, so they had a front row seat to see how to run a corrupt White House. They also learned how a president gets caught, and they're smart enough to not repeat the mistake, so who's to say what's "spooky paranoid" and what's not?

    The fact remains that, for the past three years, Bush's "stay the course" strategy has failed disastrously according to any *obvious* measure of success, yet he has changed nothing. Why?

    Indeed, answer this question — let's say you wanted:

    (a) on-going control of Iraqi oil without anyone paying much attention to your activities;

    (b) an on-going conflict in Iraq that enables you to pump truckloads of federal money into the defense industry; and

    (c) very little chance that your solution to (a) and (b) will change in the next several years;

    can you describe a strategy that would work *better* for achieving these goals than the one Bush has applied for the past three years?

    I'm not suggesting that the Bushies were smart enough to think this insanity up in advance but, once Iraq became a mess, I believe they were smart enough to recognize that (a) the mess benefits most of their core supporters and (b) they could perpetuate the mess for the rest of Bush's term.

    Are my friend and I "spooky paranoid?" I hope so.

  4. Baaism says:

    back in sept. 2005, after Sunni and Shiites started bombing each…I thought to myself, why would they bomb each other simply because of the mere differences…and the news were very quick to print out Zarqawi was responsible…majority of the attacks weren't aimed at the Americans, it's easy to stur up a civil war and simply let the Muslims kill each other…a car rigged with explosives, dead Iraqis, and remote control…or planting a timed bomb onto random cars at checkpoint…psychological war is hardly new…money over strangers any day.

  5. Erich Vieth says:

    Nora Ephron had this to say about Bush's proposed "surge":

    [T]here's no justification for sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq. No matter what President Bush says. There's no justification at all. The President is sending 20,000 more troops so that he can't be accused of not sending more troops. The President is sending 20,000 more troops because the other option didn't work, but this one isn't going to either. The President is sending 20,000 more troops so that he can postpone coming to terms with reality, which is that this war is a catastrophe. No matter how the President justifies this escalation – with add-ons like job training and buzz words like "metrics" and "benchmarks" – there's no justification for it; the only possible outcome is that more troops will be killed and wounded as patsies for an unjustifiable war.

    See here for more.

Leave a Reply