Enemies Everywhere

Bush_ringofpower "The White House said Cheney will discuss regional issues but provided no details about the hastily organized mission to Riyadh. The trip, however, comes on the eve of a summit between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Jordan next week. It will also overlap with a weekend meeting in Tehran between the presidents of Iran and Iraq to which the president of Syria has been invited."  Wright


Now, you have to ask yourself why the President, the VP and Rice are all going to be in "the region" in the same week.  Something brewing?  Something about to happen?  What could it be?  Robin Wright says that she thinks it is because Cheney feels the need to further urge King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to "get the Sunni Tribes of Iraq on board" for reconciliation talks.  I find it hard to believe that she really thinks that.  She must know that Sunni/Shia differences have passed the point of mutual anger and violence at which King Abdullah could "pull strings" and have an effect.  200 Shia killed yesterday, a ground attack on a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad today.  I wonder if the embassy and command in Iraq are now willing to concede the issue that this is a civil war.

No.  I think that ’43 is going to give Maliki a real "hiding," and effectively threaten him with a loss of support if he does not act as though he owes the White House his obedience and loyalty rather than his sect and political partners.  At the end of the meeting there will probably be some sort of press moment.  It will mean nothing.

Cheney’s mission to the big sandbox? Syria?  Iran? Maliki?  Notice on one or more of these?  That is a real possibility.  Desperation has set in at the White House.  They feel themselves surrounded by "enemies;" Baker/Hamilton, Democrats, the MSM (when not cringing at the foot of the throne), impertinent bloggers, insurgents, militias.  Who knows what might seem plausible when the "freedom agenda" is threatened.

Pat Lang


This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Enemies Everywhere

  1. 4 billion says:

    The sandbox reeks of piss and cordite
    fantasy in the Green zone
    the people of the Green flag
    live in terror
    who the hell knows what this triumvirate of shonk are cooking up
    logic has long left the building

  2. vivelame says:

    Yet funnier: why is it that Bush and Cheney go to see Al Maliki, but they don’t go in Iraq?
    Well, i guess even the green zone isn’t safe anymore.

  3. Michael says:

    Col. Lang,
    Do you have any thoughts with regards to the Alexander Litvinenko situation? It appears as though Putin and his leadership is going to be put under the microscope. It looks like all of the high powered leaders (US, Russia) are having the skeletons in their closests exposed.

  4. DeWitt Grey says:

    I recognize that our executive leadership are still in denial about Iraq when they’re sitting in Washington, but do they simply not listen to what the Saudi and Jordanian King Abdullahs tell them? Or do you reckon that the two old antagonists are so afraid of their shaky positions on their respective thrones that they prefer keeping the US Army bleeding slowly in Iraq as a buffer?
    I didn’t think any government in the “region” other than Israel’s was receiving Rice these days.

  5. Abu Sinan says:

    As-Sadr has said if Maliki goes that he will pull his support from the government. Interesting to see who gives on this one.

  6. dan says:

    According to the BBC, Sadr has threatened to withdraw his ministers and MP’s from the government if the Amman meeting with Bush goes ahead.
    I get the impression that the Bush administration Iraq “strategy” is teetering on the brink of total collapse and that they don’t have a plan E, or is it F that we’re on to now?

  7. VietnamVet says:

    Other than invading Iraq in the first place, the worst decision of the Bush Administration was disbanding the Iraq Army, instantaneously creating an insurgency. Three years later, it comes out that the National Security Council was out of the loop; Condi Rice found out about it after the fact. The decision was made by Paul Bremer and whoever was his Pentagon overseer, probably Feith or Wolfowitz.
    The Insurgency has broken out in a Civil War. When the Iraq Civil War punctures the Bush Bubble, they will screw the Shiites again. Except this time, US troops will have to make a fighting withdrawal and leaving a flattened Baghdad behind. Tanks and helicopters put down the last Shiite rebellion. This time without the heavy tools of war the ethnic conflict will be bloodier and likely result in partition. The only question is will the conflict spread out of Iraq. If Jordon and Saudis send in troops to protect Sunnis from ethnic cleansing, Revolutionary Guards will stream over the border to defend their brother Shiites. Everyone will take turns attacking the retreating infidels, except the Turks who are too busy killing Kurds.

  8. arbogast says:

    As usual, Colonel Lang’s post is succinct and to the point. His list of the White House’s perceived enemies is inclusive and correct.
    I would add only that human relationships tend to follow the path of positive feedback. In the case of George Bush, the country initially loved him far beyond any real merit of his.
    Now, the country hates him. Really hates him. There is not a rabbit big enough in the entire universe for them to pull out of their [rhymes with classes] to save him.
    It’s about George. And, wonderfully, he can’t resign.

  9. Nir Rosen’s long piece, “Anatomy of a Civil War: Iraq’s descent into chaos” strikes me as taking us (me at least) deeper into the Shia-Sunni issue than before. It makes dismal reading:
    I’d muich appreciate your comments on Rosen’s piece. Perhaps a separate topic might be indicated?

  10. anna missed says:

    In a new twist to the (Mexican druglord) phrase “do you want the lead or the gold”. Bush is probably going to offer Maliki either the “gold” as in parachute, or “lead” as in a weighted landing. Either way Maliki gets threatened with being thrown not out of the bus, but the plane. Along with Muqtada. Then all hell breaks loose, and our CIC gets one big step closer to the bottom he works so hard to find.

  11. arbogast says:

    Colonel Lang,
    I regard this as one of those “must comment” quotes. It comes from an e-mail sent to Juan Cole:
    Every Iraqi I talk to says unambiguously that the resistance attached to the former regime would take out the Shiite militias with barely a fight, but that the resistance will not commit wholesale revenge against the Shiite population. They just want to get rid of the “carpet baggers” from Iran.
    Somehow, I find this credible. But I am not even remotely an expert.
    The URL is: http://www.juancole.com/2006/11/233-dead-in-civil-war-carnage-health.html
    To my mind, this bears heavily on the decider’s options and what he will choose.
    He has dug himself a hell of a hole. It will take more than James Baker to get him out of it. Iraq isn’t Florida.

  12. different clue says:

    What does the writing on
    the ring say? And does the
    primary significance lie in
    what the writing says, or in
    the wearing of the ring by
    the President?
    (And is it the One Ring
    which Binds Them All? Or
    is it One of the Rings which
    is Bound?)

  13. walrus says:

    I think they are getting ready to attack Iran. I don’t believe Bush and Cheney see any other option given the violence in Iraq. This is my take on whats happening and going to happen. I’m trying to be “logical” my only concern is that my ideas are too conservative and not bizzare enough for Bush.
    Maliki is going to what we call in management a “come to Jesus” meeting – in other words, he is getting an ultimatum and one last chance to follow our playbook – or else.
    The Saudis (and through them the gulf states) are being given guarantees regarding defence matters should we attack Iran.
    Bush would regard the meeting of the leaders of Syria, Iraq and Iran as a deliberate provocation. In his psych he really is “the decider” and this meeting is a direct and personal challenge to his self image. He cannot let it go unavenged.
    I also note that it is reported that Russia has begun deliveries of its Tor anti aircraft missile system to Iran. Once these are deployed the Airforces “job” in bombing Iran is going to be considerably harder.
    I also note that Russia’s influence in Iran appears to be increasing. I wonder if Russia’s dream for an ice free naval base (a dream over 150 years old)is being dusted off?
    My guess is that Bush will either give Iran a deliberately unacceptable ultimatum or that a false flag operation will provide a causus belli. The failure of our campaign in Iraq will be laid at the feet of deliberate Iranian interference. They will be accused of wanting, if not having nuclear weapons, and all sorts of other crimes against humanity (and Israel).
    There follows a two to three day bombing campaign aimed at killing anyone working on the nuclear program, destroying the nuclear facilities, destroying the Iranian defence forces and any facility that potentially holds dual use technology – this includes Universities, factories and medical facilities.
    In Bush’s fevered brain, this will drive muslims into incandescent rage – which is a good thing because the bad guys will then “come into the open” where they can be dealt with by American weaponry. This will happen in Iraq (The Sadr and Badr militias). Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Israel (Hamas). At some stage Maliki will be deposed and a Sunni installed.
    After all this “creative chaos”, the map of the middle east will be redrawn, our soldiers will quietly return home for coffee and medals all round, and Bush goes down in History as a military genius and a great statesman.
    My view instead is that we could lose all our troops in Iraq, provoke a complete meltdown of the American economy, destroy NATO and other defence alliances, and perhaps trigger a coup in the U.S. itself.

  14. zanzibar says:

    Might Cheney be giving the Saudi’s a heads-up that attacks on Syria and Iran are in the offing?
    How to throw the “enemies” as PL labels them in a loop?

  15. different clue says:

    I can see another reason
    why Bush would want to attack Iran. If he ordered
    an attack which was so obviously Pearl Harbor-like
    as to provoke spontaneous
    mass-demonstrations in various American cities, he
    could have agents-provocateur sprinkled among
    the crowds to get riots going. He would then feel
    able to declare Martial Law
    and start filling up all
    those Halliburton Detention
    Camps which I have been
    reading about. In other words, “Bomb Iran” would be
    the means to his desired end
    of Martial Law in Der Heimland. How would the
    Armed Forces respond? How
    would the civilians respond?
    Maybe the people who would
    spontaneously protest a
    Pearl Harbor attack on Iran
    should be thinking now, thinking ahead, about provocateur-proof responses.
    Responses such as massive
    consumption boycotts designed to raise the credible threat of Great Depression Two if the Pearl
    Harbor attack is not broken
    off as soon as it is seen
    to be starting.
    But that kind of response
    would require planning ahead
    starting now. Too late to
    start planning once Emperor
    Bushohito gives the order.

  16. 4 billion says:

    Walrus, I like your ‘blame Iran for badness in Iraq’ play, sounds custom made for Bushian logic.
    The situation is so loopy that your propositions for US melt down etc sound not unreasonable.
    It would be ironic if this whole escapade resulted in the ‘Sunnification’ of US ie 30% ruling 70%.
    Russia selling missiles right now to Iran certainly spreads this comedy over a larger stage.
    I think the one consistant factor in radical historical change is stupidity.

  17. Got A Watch says:

    When Darth Cheney shows up at your door, you know it’s not gonna be good news. It will be at least a bombing campaign, maybe an invasion.
    Madame Supertanker will make a bright, perky speech about a “New American Plan”, then catch a fast plane out of the region.
    GWB will sit at a large table with very few guests, while wondering what that roaring mob in the distance is on about.
    Everyone will appear for a “positive press event”, before retiring to discuss priority bombing targets in Iran over drinks.
    Meanwhile, Iraq will continue to burn in the background.

  18. Robert in SB says:

    Walrus, you get permanent my guy status for that last paragraph. I hope you/we are wrong.

  19. twenty says:

    ENRAGING 1.4 BILLION WORLDWIDE MUSLIMS — “BLOOD IN THE STREETS” STRATEGY — Part 1 – Sexual Abuse and Specific Humiliation of Iraqi Prisoners — UPDATED 18:27 hours EDT, May 6, 2004
    Resources to aid your Understanding
    Subtitle: When American and British forces sexually abused Iraqi prisoners of war, they were directly targeting one of the most sensitive areas of Islamic religion! The manner in which our sexual abuse and humiliation occurred was even more important than the fact that sexual abuse did occur.
    “Truth is not what is; truth is what people perceive it to be” – Adolf Hitler, Master Propagandist

  20. rebecca says:

    different clue,
    Regarding your question “How would the Armed Forces respond?” (to Martial Law)
    I think that if such a scenario as you outline should come to pass, it would not be our Armed Forces doing the enforcement.
    I think it would more likely be the specially trained Homeland Security counter-terrorism units of various urban police forces, and the private “security contractors” such as Blackwater.
    Our Armed Forces will be kept quite busy on the other side of the world.

  21. Got A Watch says:

    “My view instead is that we could lose all our troops in Iraq, provoke a complete meltdown of the American economy, destroy NATO and other defence alliances, and perhaps trigger a coup in the U.S. itself.”
    Ok, but give us your worst case scenario – don’t sugar coat it. Actually, I agree fully, a probable and realistic outcome. Somewhere in a cave, Osama is laughing.

  22. different clue says:

    Rebecca, I think you are right. And would they be
    reluctant to kill? Or eager
    to kill for pleasure? Worth
    not finding out.
    I hope whoever plans these things and thinks they
    will get something done by
    organizing mass protests and
    demonstrations will rethink
    that and plan something else. Something like a massive consumption boycott.
    What if 50 million people
    were to Just Stop Shopping?
    And stay stopped till the
    Bush Administration broke off the attack?
    Blackwater Security can
    keep us off the streets, maybe. But they can’t make
    us all go shopping.

  23. different clue says:

    I showed this picture to
    a co-worker who knows Arabic
    as-a-first-language to ask him to translate it for me.
    He told me “It’s a joke, man! It’s the Ring from Lord
    Of The Rings!” Clearly, I
    don’t know written Arabic from Elvish.
    My excuse is: I read Lord
    of the Rings twenty years ago at least. And I only saw the first part of the current movie, and that on a
    tiny TV screen. So I forgive myself for not getting the point of the picture. Which makes me wonder, what must I think of
    Our President, that Lord of
    the Rings would occur to me…
    Clearly Bush is no Frodo.
    And he seems to me more Gollum than Saruman. If this picture is meant to lead us to regard Bush “as
    Saruman”, then Who or What
    is his Sauron?

  24. KH says:

    Late answer to the original question: Wright & Ricks (Nov 28) report that Cheney was “basically summoned” to Riyadh. “The visit was originally portrayed as U.S. outreach …”
    As Laura Rozen suggested, Congress might be well advised to take note of his responsiveness & begin to work through Riyadh to get its own questions answered.

Comments are closed.