A N A L Y S I S

Iraq the muddy Debate and the Anti-Escalation Strategy
Is president Bush pushing for an attack on Iran?

WITH his popularity graph falling to as low 28 percent, President Bush suffered another heavy blow. the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has expressed its strong disapproval of his decision to deploy more than 20,000 United States combat troops to Iraq.

To add to his woes, as many as 17 Republicans also joined Democrats in the House of Representatives to oppose the Iraq policy, which includes an increase in troops there, in a non-binding resolution. Only two Democrats joining the Grand Old Party in opposition to their Party’s position.  This so-called Non Binding Resolution is only the precursor to a binding Resolution calling for cut off in funds. “Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007 to deploy more than 20,000 US combat troops to Iraq.” Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the US armed forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq,” the resolution said.

But the US Senate has decided not to debate a resolution criticising troop surge in Iraq. Democrats needed the support of 60 of the 100 senators to advance the same motion in the Senate, but they only managed to gain 56 votes in favour. But Bush still faces battles with Congress over funding for US troops in Iraq. Although both the Congressional resolutions are non-binding, the president needs the legislators to support his $93bn emergency troop-funding measure.

The resolution came on a day when Iraqi insurgents claimed another US helicopter killing eight U S troops and a car bomb killed sixty poor Iraqis.  So far over 6.5 lakh Iraqis and over 3200 U S troops have lost their lives pushed on by the American president.

The Bush administration’s preparation to strike Iran is complete, with the top commander of the US central command having received computerised plans for Operation Iranian Freedom, a report has said.

“American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran extend far beyond targeting suspect weapons of mass destruction facilities and will enable President George W. Bush to destroy Iran’s military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons”, the journal New Statesman has claimed.

In a story titled ‘Attack Revealed: America’s plans to invade Iran’, the journal quoting British military sources said “The US military switched its whole focus to Iran as soon as Saddam Hussein was removed from power. The White House continued this strategy, though it had American forces bogged down in Iraq.”

The US army, navy, air force and marines had all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for Operation Iranian Freedom. Admiral Fallon, the new head of US central command, had inherited computerised plans under the name Theatre Iran Near Term. The US navy could put six carriers into battle at a month’s notice. Any US general planning to attack Iran could now assume that at least 10,000 targets could be hit in a single day.

American Congress is overwhelming against sending more troops to Iraq. It is clear from the marathon debate. Yet it seems the real political push to get out of Iraq and save human lives is being pushed to the corner by a clever move by President Bush through this escalation strategy. Keep Democrats and the Congress busy on peripheral issues like how much more troops or funds to be sanctioned and whether the Congress should look less patriotic or more by supporting troops that are eager to come home.

For the past three days, each of the 435 members in the House has had five minutes to speak on the Iraq war. The debate focused around a resolution that expresses support for the "United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq," but disapproval "of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." Lawmakers, analysts, and the media expect the measure to pass with strong bipartisan support. Almost all Democrats will likely vote for the measure, along with anywhere from 12-60 Republicans. Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL), one of the members who has said he will vote for the resolution, said, "I approached this decision with a great deal of angst and humility. I'm not trying to micromanage this war. ... But I have listened to what our country's most well-respected four-star generals have to say about this matter, and generals [John] Abizaid, [Barry] McCaffrey and Colin Powell have all said that sending more troops into Baghdad now is not the answer." Bush has repeatedly tried to dismiss the House resolution. On the first day of the House debate, Bush headed to a YMCA and visited "children bending paperclips into different shapes." But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted that this resolution will be the first congressional message of disapproval over the President's war: "I don't know that the president can completely ignore us. We are the voices of the American people. They were clear in the election that they wanted a new direction, no place more clear than in Iraq."

A small group of conservatives have tried to claim that the Iraq resolution is anti-American and emboldens the terrorists. "I think the question we have to ask is: Whose side are you on? Whose side are you on?" Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) "fumed." "Are you on the side of winning? Are you on the side of freedom? Are you on the side of allowing the terrorists to get an upper hand?" NBC News reported that Boehner "got emotional" on Tuesday morning "as he spoke about the 'solemn' debate" the House was set to begin. He even "began to shed tears." Boehner's fleeting moment of solemnity was quickly replaced with divisive attacks on Iraq war critics. Speaking on the House floor, Boehner began debate on the anti-escalation resolution by calling it a criticism of "the latest effort by American forces to win in Iraq." Boehner said that escalation opponents are taking the "bait" of "al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers" by using Iraq to "divide us here at home." Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) charged that supporters of the anti-escalation resolution would "aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country." These charges are baseless. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace told the House Armed Services," There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy, period." He added that the troops understand the "debate's being carried on by patriotic people who care about them and who care about their mission."

Critics have repeatedly charged that the resolution is a "slow-bleed" plan that will undercuts the troops. But a new plan that Murtha plans to introduce next month will both cut off funding for escalation and provide increased support to the military, ensuring that the President doesn't have a blank check for the war. His proposal would put four conditions on Bush's war funds through Sept. 30: "The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are 'fully combat ready' with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year; a 'stop-loss' program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited."

BACK

With Compliments from


Gogi Sidhu
President

Satish K. Jain
Executive Vice President

1301, Mahalo Place, Rancho Dominguez , CA 90220 U.S.A.

http://www.magnespec.com
Phone:- 0013106032262