The insurgent army known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is clearly on the military ascendency.
Its blitzkreig has thrown the American-trained Iraqi Army into a panic, with soldiers dropping their rifles and running for their lives. And it has steamrolled virtually unopposed from northern Iraq to towns only about 50 miles from Baghdad.
President Barack Obama has notified Congress that he will send up to 275 troops to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad.
He is also considering the use of American air power to at least slow down the ISIS advance, if not give the regular Iraqi army a chance to halt it.
On the Right, perpetrators of the 2003 Iraq war like former Vice President Dick Cheney charge that Obama is about to “lose” Iraq. It’s the same slander Republicans hurled at Democrats when mainland China fell to Mao Tse Tung’s Communist armies in 1948.
On the Left, those who supported Obama’s efforts to withdraw American military forces from Iraq now fear he will re-send thusands of troops back there. The United States finished withdrawing its military personel from Iraq in December, 2011.
Now, less than two years later, America seems about to plunge again into that quagmire. Where did this all start? There is actually a dark historical parallel to the events leading up to the Iraq war. A parallel that has its roots in Nazi Germany.
ADOLF HITLER
When Germany’s Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, wanted to invade Poland in 1939, he mounted a sustained propaganda campaign to “justify” his ambitions.
Adolf Hitler
German “newspapers”-–produced by Joseph Goebbels, the club-footed Minister of Propaganda–-carried fictitious stories of how brutal Poles were beating and even murdering their helpless German citizens.
In theaters, German audiences saw phony newsreels showing Poles attacking and raping German women living in Poland.
For a time, Hitler not only deceived the Germans but the world. Just before German tanks and troops invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, members of Hitler’s dreaded SS secret police rounded up a number of prisoners from German concentration camps.
They inmates were dressed in Polish Army uniforms and driven to a German radio station at Gleiwitz, on the German/Polish border. There they were shot by SS men. Then Polish-speaking SS men “seized” the station and broadcast to Germany that a Polish invasion of Germany was now under way.
Hitler, addressing Germany’s rubber-stamp parliament, the Reichstag, dramatically asserted: “This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5.45 a.m. we have been returning the fire, and from now on bombs will be met by bombs.”
Leaders of Britain and France were taken in by this ruse. They had pledged to go to war if Hitler attacked Poland. But they didn’t want to take on Germany if Poland had been the aggressor. By the time the truth became known, Poland was securely in German hands.
On August 22, 1939, Hitler had outlined his strategy to a group of high-ranking military officers: I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked, later on, whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war, it is not Right that matters, but Victory.
GEORGE W. BUSH
American President George W. Bush followed a similar strategy while he prepared to invade Iraq: He ordered the topmost members of his administration to convince the American people of the war’s necessity.
George W. Bush
Among those members: National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice; Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Condaleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld
Among their arguments-–all eventually revealed as lies-–were:
- Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had worked hand-in-glove with Osama Bin Laden to plan 9/11.
- Saddam was harboring and supporting Al Qaeda throughout Iraq.
- Saddam, with help from Al Qaeda, was scheming to build a nuclear bomb.
- Iraq possessed huge quantities of chemical/biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions.
- Saddam was preparing to use those weapons against the United States.
- American Intelligence agencies had determined the precise locations where those weapons were stored.
- The war would be self-financing via the oil revenues that would come from Iraq.
- Invading American forces would be welcomed as liberators.
ADOLF HITLER
Hitler intended Poland to be only his first conquest on what became known as “the Eastern Front.” Conquering Poland would place his powerful Wehrmacht on the border of the country that was his ultimate target: The Soviet Union.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney–the “power-behind-the-throne” of the Bush Presidency–had his own ambitions for conquering Iraq.
According to former Bush speechwriter David Frum: Cheney longed for war in Iraq to gain reliable control of that nation’s vital oil resources. A successful occupation of Iraq would also allow the United States to threaten such bordering Islamic nations as Syria, Iran and even Saudi Arabia.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
9/11, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, BARACK OBAMA, BASHIR AL-ASSAD, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DICK CHENEY, DONALD RUMSFELD, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, IRAQ, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SYRIA, TALIBAN, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
POLITICS BY ORWELL: “WAR IS PEACE”: PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 5, 2013 at 1:40 pmA two-year civil war is raging in Syria.
United Nations officials estimate that 6,000 people have died there trying to overthrow the dictatorial regime of “President” Bashar al-Assad.
And that’s sending jitters through the Washington elite.
Not the casualties. The fact that they’re being shown in vivid color on YouTube and CNN.
And this, in turn, has led many members of Congress and the Obama administration to fear for their jobs. They dread that voters will blame them for not “doing something” to end the fighting.
Like sending in American armed forces to somehow stop it.
Another reason driving America’s headlong rush into war: Sheer stupidity.
Start with the neocons, who lustily supported the 2003 Iraq war have been spoiling for yet another war in the Middle East.
On March 21, 2013, House Foreign Affairs ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced the “Free Syria Act of 2013,” calling on the Obama administration to arm the Syrian rebels.
And on May 27, Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain secretly entered Syria and met with commanders of the Free Syrian Army, who are fighting forces loyal to “President” Bashar al Assad for control of the country.
He was the first U.S. senator to travel to Syria since civil war erupted there in 2011. And after he left, he told CNN that he was more convinced that the United States must become more involved in the country’s conflict.
President Barack Obama could have easily confronted these “give war a chance” enthusiests and put them on the defensive–had he wished to do so.
President Obama at press conference
He could have bluntly and repreatedly used the bully pulpit of his office to warn Americans:
And, most importantly, Obama could have directly challenged the macho ethic of the American Right.
Especially those members of it who, while avoiding military service themselves, are always eager to send others into harm’s way at the slightest excuse.
The President could have officially established an all-volunteer brigade for those Americans willing to fight and possibly die in yet another pointless war. And he could have offered to fly them to the border of Syria so they could carry out their self-appointed “conquer or die” mission.
Of course, many–if not most–of these armchair strategists would have refused to put their own lives on the line in defense of a “cause” they claim to believe in.
But then Obama could have brutally–and repeatedly–pointed this out. Hypocrisy is something Americans understand all too well–and despise.
Instead, for a man celebrated for his oratorical gifts, Obama has managed to talk himself into a no-win situation.
Theodore Roosevelt claimed to operate by a South African proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.”
Obama spoke loudly about the “big stick” of American military power and said that if Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its enemies, that would be “a red line in the sand.”
By doing so, he needlessly put his credibility as President on the line.
On August 21, the Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons in Damascus suburbs to kill more than 1,400 civilians.
On August 30, the Obama administration said it had “high confidence” that Syria’s government carried out the chemical weapons attack.
Having boxed himself in, Obama felt he had to make good on his threat–even if it risked the lives of those flying combat missions over Syria’s formidable air defenses.
Yet, even at this late stage, Obama could find a face-saving reason for not intervening. He could state that while there is apparent evidence of a chemical attack, there is no conclusive evidence that this was carried out by the Assad regime.
In short: He could shift the blame to one of the many terror groups operating in Syria–such as Hizbollah or Hammas or Al Qaeda.
This would take the United States off the hook–thus saving the lives of countless American soldiers and avoiding a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia.
But having needlessly put his own credibility–and ego–on the line, this is unlikely.
What’s more likely is Obama will continue to hurtle down the road to disaster.
Share this: