Accidental Blogger

I am sure most of you watched (or read about) George W. Bush’s fantasy filled speech on January 10, 2007 in which he once again tried to sell us a bill of dangerous goods in the name of national security.

After perfunctorily taking responsibility for mistakes in Iraq (a bitter pill for an arrogant man), Bush assured us that if only we trust him and his disastrous ideas just one more time, he will redeem himself and American pride. In his megalomaniac delusions, he doesn’t realize that the two are not the same. Bush asserted that if only he can send a few thousand more soldiers into the meat grinder of the Iraqi battle front, his war efforts will succeed (what exactly is success in Iraq at this time?).

Congress has raised a hue, cry and a red flag about Bush’s surge, rightly calling it an escalation of an already untenable situation. Condoleeza Rice who was grilled by the Senate Armed Services Committee, objected to the word escalation and prissily insisted on calling the increase in troop level an augmentation. It is baffling to see politicians shamelessly quibbling about choice of words when their action of choice by any name will have the same tragic result – death of more Iraqis and Americans. Yet they try to "prettify" what is unquestionably ugly.

And why augmentation and not surge as it was before or escalation as it really is?  For me, the word brings forth images of cosmetic surgery. Breast, hip, lip augmentation – going under the knife to fix, tweak and enhance something one is not satisfied with. Is the latest Bush-Cheney-Rice plan to augment troop levels in Iraq similarly cosmetic in nature?  A desperate last ditch attempt to prove to Americans they did their best in Iraq. If it doesn’t work (which most experts say it won’t), then they can blame the failure on war critics at home and the government in Iraq  and wash their hands of the whole mess and move to their next game plan.  A convenient policy of Cut ‘n’ Blame.

The next game plan! Is there one? George W. Bush is said to suffer from Oedipal complex (more to do with daddy than mommy), competing and failing since childhood against his more accomplished father. I heard George McGovern, a true war hero, call him Bush the Lesser the other day while discussing his book, Out of Iraq on C-Span. I don’t like comparisons between family members. But family dynamics  do shape characters for better or worse. Powerful leaders suffering the wounds of their own lack of self worth often extract the price of their insecurities by unleashing their fury on the world. As is often the case, low achieving sons of highly successful fathers spend their entire lives looking for a defining triumph that will redeem them in the eyes of the parent. They go from one failed project to another in search of a dazzling moment of glory which eludes them. Now that even the most committed Bushie can not spin adroitly enough to make a silk purse out of the sow’s ear that is Bush’s mess in Iraq, George W. must be in a panic mode. He must also be seething that Daddy’s old buddies have offered public advice to him on how to run his war. He needs success (or the pretense of it) quickly in Iraq or else he will look for it elsewhere – another fresh adventure that will restore his machismo.

Amateur psychoanalysis of what makes Bush tick may be fun and a way for us to make sense of what appears to be utter insanity to a rational person. But Bushs’ insecurities and personal failings  do not account for the whole story of wrong headed policies. After all, this is not a monarchy and Bush is only the first among warmongering equals. He is the visible spokesman for more devious minds who have found in him a convenient and willing instrument for realizing their greed fueled world view of domination and exploitation. That is why one must look past  psychology and pay attention to hard facts and we may begin to understand what Bush really means by success in Iraq and beyond. The most ominous part of Bush’s speech were the following short paragraphs:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We’re also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

The same crusading, messianic words of an imperialistic map-maker that we have heard before. This unprovoked saber rattling, along with the recent suspicious clash with Iranian officials in Irbil in northern Iraq raises the following question in my mind. Is Bush looking for a new target to vent his anger and frustrations or is it part of a grand middle east plan he and his advisors had in mind all along? If so, he may try an old pre-emptive maneuver as new tactic with the help of Israel, the only country in the world which may honestly believe that invading Iran is a good idea. Certainly some of the same discredited neo-con cheerleaders who led us down the disastrous path, have once again come out of the wood works to sing the familiar battle hymn. Bush who hates criticism, even honest ones, loves his echo chamber. So he will be more inclined to listen to the proponents of the "shock and awe" style of foreign policy rather than the sage advice of diplomacy meted out by Baker-Hamilton.  It is also interesting that the only US senator Bush mentioned by name in his speech for his good advice was Joe Lieberman whose super hawkish, one sided, pro-Israeli stance in the middle east is widely known.

But what will this bellicose approach do to our military if it were to cater to Bush’s imperialistic dream of world domination (more pop psych 101 -The Alexander the Great complex)? Experts tell us that any expansion of military commitment now will exert enormous pressure on the existing armed forces. Military recruitment will have to go into high gear. The Pentagon will have to reach deep into the National Guards reserves and enlisted men and women will have their tours of duty extended to exhausting lengths. All scary predictions. Let’s just hope that things won’t become this bad.