Scott Ritter: Iraq Will Have to Wait

Iraq Will Have to Wait
by Scott Ritter

The long-awaited “progress report” of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the status of the occupation of Iraq has been made, providing Americans, via the compliant media, with the spectacle of loyal Bush yes men offering faith-based analysis in lieu of fact-based assessment. In the days and weeks that have since passed, two things have become clear: Neither Congress nor the American people (including the antiwar movement) have a plan or the gumption to confront President Bush in anything more than cosmetic fashion over the war in Iraq, and while those charged with oversight mill about looking to score cheap political points and/or save face, the administration continues its march toward conflict with Iran unimpeded.

Bush responded to the Petraeus report by indicating that he would be inclined to start reducing the level of U.S. forces in Iraq sometime soon (maybe December, maybe the spring of 2008). But the bottom line is that the troop levels in Iraq keep expanding, as does the infrastructure of perpetual occupation. The Democrats in Congress are focused on winning the White House in 2008, not stopping a failed war, and as such they not only refuse to decisively confront the president on Iraq, they are trying to out-posture him over who would be the tougher opponent of an expansionist Iran.

Here’s the danger: While the antiwar movement focuses its limited resources on trying to leverage real congressional opposition to the war in Iraq, which simply will not happen before the 2008 election, the Bush administration and its Democratic opponents will outflank the antiwar movement on the issue of Iran, pushing forward an aggressive agenda in the face of light or nonexistent opposition.

Of the two problems (the reality of Iraq, the potential of Iran), Iran is by far the more important. The war in Iraq isn’t going to expand tenfold overnight. By simply doing nothing, the Democrats can rest assured that Bush’s bad policy will simply keep failing. War with Iran, on the other hand, can still be prevented. We are talking about the potential for conflict at this time, not the reality of war. But time is not on the side of peace.

Three story lines unfolded earlier this month which underscore just how easily manipulated the American people, via the media, are when it comes to the issues of Iran and weapons of mass destruction. In the first, Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a spokesperson for the U.S. military in Iraq, let it be known that U.S. forces had captured a “known operative” of the “Ramazan Corps,” the ostensible branch of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard command responsible for all Iranian operations inside Iraq. This “operative,” one Mahmudi Farhadi, was, according to Fox, the “linchpin” behind the smuggling of “sophisticated weapons” into Iraq by the Quds Force.

We’ve heard this story before. In January of this year a similar raid by U.S. forces in Irbil netted six Iranians, five of whom are still in U.S. custody. Senior American officials let it be known that these Iranians were likewise members of the Quds Force, and included that organization’s operations director. All were tied to the (unspecified) transfer of arms and munitions into Iraq from Iran. The Iranian government claimed, and the Iraqi government confirmed, that the detained Iranians were all attached to a trade mission in Irbil, where they oversaw legitimate commerce between Iran and Iraq along the Kurdish frontier.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/27/4134/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6945345,00.html

Anyway, thanks for posting -- I'll go read the rest now. I agree with Ritter in that in never fails to amaze me at "just how easily manipulated the American people, via the media, are when it comes to the issues of Iran and weapons of mass destruction..."

The Far Right continues to control the GOP and frame the debate for the "Democrat Party." In fact, the Democratic Party isn't a party, even by weak American standards. It is a collection of interests who claim to be working for some kind of "third way" change which people want. It has little coherent philosophy, poor organization and the response time of a turtle. As for aggressive action, forget it: its chief action is inaction; waiting for the GOP to "step in it" so Democrats can return to "power." All this is passive/aggressiveness raised to the level of social policy. Only city-managers and Democratic consultants can do a bad job and expect to remain in power with a pay increase.

No clear philosophy = no clear policies.

As for the Far Right,they are in it for the long haul; certainly past the 2013 murmuring non-deadline for the Democrats' "Big 3." They have lots of money, lots of highly-educated ideologues, lots of belly, and they are sublimely aggressive.