Your Thoughts Exactly

So you people may not have enough time to read and analyze Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker article detailing the Bush administration’s foreign policy agenda over the next four years. (Hersh, for those who don’t know, is the reporter who broke the Abu Gharib prison abuses.) Since I consider this important, I am doing it for you. Oh yea, we are giant idiots for reelecting this group of people.

Point 1: The Bush administration has been conducting intelligence reports (based in the Department of Defense) to discover possible nuclear sites in Iran, with the intention of conducting air raids against such sites, with possible commando support as early as this winter (that’s summer for you Northern Hemisphere people.)

Analysis: I’m a little annoyed that I didn’t’ put “We invade Iran,” in my predictions, opting for Syria instead. Regardless of the Middle Eastern country, I was certain that the US would make another move. Bush believes he has the country behind him with regards to his foreign policy, and with his reelection and the makeup of Congress, it’s hard to argue that point. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is perceived to be feasible within the next five years, with England, France, and Germany currently in negotiations to get the Iran government to halt uranium production. Of course, the US refuses to join these negotiations, infuriating the Europeans who need the US additional leverage to coerce Iran in capitulating. Here I believe the Bush administration is intentionally sabotaging any hope of a negotiated solution. By refusing to join in with established powers, the US is insuring no negotiated solution, leaving only the UN Security Council as a channel of diplomacy. Of course the UN Security Council has been neutered by the US after they went around the UN in the Iraq war, as even if the US were to support a resolution, likely China or Russia would veto any action in response to their views on the Iraq War. This opens the door for the US to justify military action, continuing the Bush crusade to forcibly bring democracy to the Middle East. Once again, the Bush administration believes that US military action could cause the reformers of Iran (who have actually had some success over the years) to rise up and overthrow the ruling clerics. To which I, and many other critics of Bush policy say: Are you fucking retarded? Scholars who specialize in Iran take a more eloquent approach and choose to look at the facts, such as that such attacks would be seen as an assault by the US to keep Iran from being a regional player, more likely to unite the population against the US than divide.

Point 2: The administration is in the middle of a power transition, remaking the Pentagon and Department of Defense as the most important controller of covert military action, thereby assuming many of the CIA’s responsibility, increasing the influence and power of Donald Rumsfield, and attempting to bypass reporting such actions to Congress.

Analysis: I have now figured out how Kerry could have won the election: pick his Cabinet three months ahead of time and sell the whole race as ‘Team Kerry,” versus “Team Bush.” How hard would it have been to find people more popular then Rummy and Ashcroft, for example? Oh well, too little too late. Despite the face that every international hates him, Rumsfield and his deputies are well loved in Camp W. The most disheartening aspect of Hersh’s article is the purging of dissenters from within the Bush camp. Evidently non-believers are no longer tolerated.

Point 3: This new power at the Pentagon is considering operations against terrorist networks in up to ten countries, including many allies, from Morocco to Malaysia, that can be best compared to the attempted funding of Central American guerillas in the 1980s. Basically the Pentagon would fund operatives to recruit “fake” terrorist networks that would then attack real ones, causing dissent and mistrust within the global terrorist community.

Analysis: The idea of causing all terrorists to not trust each other sounds nice, but with a new institution in charge (The Pentagon) and an administration that lacks the ability to micromanage a lunch order, this sounds ominous at best. The concept of sovereignty is important, and the US has already done enough damage without having their own men caught by the Malaysian or even worse, Saudi army, which would inevitably happen.
This administration thinks big, envisioning a Middle East where Freedom and Democracy reign and dissuade any terrorists from acting. Maybe they’ll all become Christians too! Yet their execution of plans, most importantly their inability to finish the job is atrocious. How can they possibly be considering going into Iran when Iraq is such a disaster, Afghanistan is still a war zone, and the military is already stretched so thin? Does the administration ever consider the implications of its actions on the United States’ international image? How are we planning on paying for air raids when we don’t have enough body army for troops in Iraq? Back when I played Civilization, I used to sweep through a bunch of cities with catapults or cannons, leaving one measly cannon with its one defense behind to guard my conquered lands. Inevitably some barbarian tribe or third nation would come in and capture my city, to my dismay. You pay for your arrogance when you combine a sense of entitlement with unrealizable visions of grandeur. But hey, we get we voted for.