[NYTr] The Decider-in-Chief Is Anything But

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[An interesting analysis by Simon McGuinness that responds to Robert
Parry's Consortium News piece on the New York Times's war propaganda,
and expands on some of Frank Rich's insights about Petraeus as the new
Commander in Chief in Sunday's New York Times.  We hope he's right, that
there's been a silent coup, at least as far as foreign policy, by the
US military.  Time will tell. We'll see what happens in September and
beyond. -NY Transfer]

See:
The NY Times' New Pro-War Propaganda by Robert Parry 7/31/2007:
https://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20070730/066142.html

and:
Who Was Really in Charge During Bush's Colonoscopy by Frank Rich 7/30/07
https://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20070723/066113.html

The decider-in-chief is anything but.

Simon McGuinness,
Dublin.

My gut tells me that Gen. David Petraeus is working, not for the
President, but for the US military.  This is why Bush is deferring to
him for his entire Iraqi policy - the military are now in charge of
Iraq, not the President.  They are, in effect, the adult he has handed
it to, broken, to fix.  Petraeus will decide, not because GW has asked
him to, but because the entire leadership of the US military - the
generals - have nominated him as their commander in the field.  Bush is
just the lame duck that follows whatever they decide.  The
decider-in-chief is anything but.

An aerial attack against Iran which was planned by Bush & Cheney (and
Olmert) to take place over 14 months ago was vetoed by the US military.
In most other countries this would classify as a coup, but the US
generals are too clever to go public.  Their man is better left in
place, his wings clipped.  He can say all he wants - no one is listening
anymore.  The only thing he can't do is launch an attack on anyone or
anything that the US generals do not authorise.  And that powerlessness
may actually suit GW right now.  He can be absolved of blame whilst he
whiles away the time like some AWOL national guard airman.

The generals hit the panic button when they realised that the first
casualty of an attack on Iran would be the sitting ducks of the US army
in Iraq.  They were right.  Maybe they simply told the Whitehouse that
if orders to attack Iran were given they would resign en-block.  Or they
could have produced a report that showed that to repulse an Iranian
attack on Baghdad they'd need a force of 500,000 soldiers in addition to
what they have on the ground and to get those in position would require
an immediate military draft and a 12 month training and deployment
program.  Even Cheney would realise this was undeliverable.

Having made their point, they then directed Petraeus to give the
President his surge to see if it would stabilise Iraq, or enough of Iraq
for the President to claim victory, withdraw and hand the problem over
to the Iraqi government.  Surge was plan B - plan A was to bomb Iran's
nuclear installations.  The surge was invented to distract Bush.

It is interesting to see how the military on the ground in Iraq have
been pointing the finger at Iran for the accuracy of IEDs and for more
accurate missile and mortar attacks on US and British bases.  The raid
on the Iranian embassy in northern Iraq and the capture of alleged spies
fits into the picture here with the US military seeking to take out
Iranian assets regardless of the political cost.

Also, the "range finding" exercises that have been carried out on the
green zone in Baghdad over the past few weeks, which were described by
the US military as significantly more accurate than anything the
insurgency had been able to deliver previously, are likely to have been
undertaken with Iranian technology and by Iranian personnel acting under
the protection of the insurgency.  The US military, not wishing to
escalate the potential for an attack against Iran, suggested that Iraqi
insurgents trained in Iran were likely to be responsible.  My guess is
that they know it was Iranian special forces working undercover and
seeking to test the defences of the US bases in order to plan for how
they would launch an all-out assault on the bases in the event of an
attack by the USA.  And operating inside Iraq will get them valuable
intelligence on the nature of the insurgency and what elements of it
that can trust as allies in the event that Iran retaliates against the
USA.

Petraeus has realised that the failure of the surge makes an attack on
Iran more likely simply because withdrawal in defeat is unacceptable,
Bush would rather launch another war, this time against Iran.  Thus
Petraeus is intent on spinning out the surge for as long as he can
hoping to exceed the President's term in office.  He will then hand the
problem back to Bush's successor and suggest an immediate withdrawal.

Petraeus desperately needs a success, however small, to dangle as a
carrot to get more time.  The NY Times may merely be picking up on the
propaganda from the military sources, rather than from the usual
discredited White House sources.  Given his control on the reportage out
of Iraq, Petraeus stands a fair chance of spinning a "just a little bit
longer" story based on fictitious successes.

Reuters quotes Petraeus today as saying "... I will ... determine at
what point we can in fact begin to send forces
home without replacements."  

Not Congress, not the President, "I".

Coup Erat Demonstrandum.