The War on Terror is a Total Loss

The War on Terror is a Total Loss

Several interesting stories have emerged lately dealing with the effectiveness or lack of same with BushCo’s “surge” in Iraq ranging from yesterday’s News-Leader headline “Higher Troop Levels Sap Army” through all the buzz about whether or not Congress should wait for General Patraeus’ report from Iraq before taking action to cut support for the war.

NPR’s Morning Edition today reported on a survey that sheds a lot of light on the subject. In the most extensive poll of “experts” yet, over 100 members of the foreign policy establishment including liberals, conservatives, ambassadors, past presidential advisors, etc. were polled to determine their feelings about the effectiveness of our present efforts in the “War on Terror”. The result:

84% say the U.S is not winning war on terror
91% believe Americans are in greater danger now than before we invaded Iraq
53% believe that events on the ground in Iraq are the primary problem with our efforts against terrorism
66% of the conservatives polled believe that our policies are ineffective against terrorism

The conclusion was that the surge is having a negative impact on the war on terror. As we have known all along, the experts now proclaim that the war on terror is a total loss. Asked whether we should invade Iran 80% said no. They believe that Pakistan is the most likely source of nuclear weaponry for terrorists – not Iran.

So why has Bush been so vocal about Iran? Simply because it fits more neatly into BushCo’s idea of how to control the Middle East. Confronting Pakistan with the reality of the threat their possession of nuclear arms and technology poses to the world would be diplomatically difficult. They are considered an ally, but their weapons capabilities combined with their loosey-goosey government make them a potential provider of arms to undesirables and they certainly are providing a haven for them right now - clearly a situation beyond the skills of the meat-ax diplomatic approach BushCo wields. It is much simpler to point at a loose cannon, though relatively powerless, leader in Iran and convince people that Iran is the big threat. Besides, controlling Pakistan would provide no leverage on behalf of Israel. Nor would it add to our control of the region’s oil.

Never mind the real terrorist threat. That has never been BushCo’s real focus. If an option doesn’t show a way to produce some income for the BushCo buddies but does propose a very difficult problem solving situation, you can bet that this administration will ignore it no matter how valuable it might be in the long run.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi

Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR