Friday, December 08, 2006

Rumsfled's "Memo of Options": Just Another Corruption Manual

Anyone been following up on this old coot? Yeah, I'm talking about U.S. Secretary of "Defense", Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld, accomplished neocon and one man who has plenty of blood on his hands. I must admit that he has done quite a lot for the detriment of Iraq, sadly, considering the fallacious investigations into genocidal incidents on part of Coalition troops stationed there. Rumsfeld is famous for being cute in front of the mic, and in mulling over most issues that neocons try to run away from, whenever it comes to being questioned by the press (yes, God damn them for trying to get the truth out, eh, Rummy?). But they're authority figures, so we can't question them, even when they screw up a beautiful nation like Iraq 100,000 times over.

The ever so snoopy (and yet also biased) New York Times published a formerly classified Novermber 6 memorandum that Donald Rumsfeld himself issued regarding the Iraq war. The big hype of it all is that it was supposed to issue a "major" change. Well, let's just see how "major" it really is. Let's start by analyzing the intro of the memo:

"The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

Remind me again... who was it who incited this "sectarian violence" and encouraged the formation of the "death squads" in the first place? The Iraqis themselves? Doubt they would commit suicide, especially when an invader such as the Coalition is involved.

What I find common amongst neocon politicians and other incompetents is that they usually have no friggin' clue on what they're talking about, and what they speak is usually empty Orwellian gibberish that is most dismissed by the biggest threat to such politicians: the intellectual mind. Let's just start by looking at his first "point":

"Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made)."

If anything, the U.S. public has not been assured of any such progress for the most part in Iraq. So, how are the Iraqi people themselves, who for the most part want the Coalition out of Iraq, going to respond to this? Obviously, not so well. Note also that Rumsfeld made it clear that this non-representative government of Iraq is the only body that the Coalition is dealing with, not the people of Iraq, and this of course underlies any sort of democratic reform because it fails to address the demands of the people.

Then, there's the question of a pull-out, or even adding more U.S. troops to the mess in Iraq. Honestly, Rumsfeld has no care whatsoever about human life: those of the Iraqi troops and those of his own nation's troops.

"Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq."

Not that I tend to be biased, but carrying out joint military exercises, as Russia and China have done in the past, have been viewed at negatively because in this case, the developing Iraqi army is in cahoots with the developed Coalition (U.S./U.K.) army. This is pretty much starting to sound like the forging of the Egypt-U.S. alliance ever since that petty scumbag of a dictator, Husni Mubarak, took the presidential throne for himself.

Skipping over a few subtle empty points, we find something not so subtle:

"Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province."

So, let me get this straight. Provine A wants the help of the U.S., but the people of province A will only get that help if they allow themselves to be subjugated to Coalition "security measures". That is, the people of province A get their freedoms sacrificed for the sake of their "security", which could eventually result in the destabilization of the province. But seeing how that works, we turn to another point in this damning memo:

"Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."

"Good" behavior means compliance with Coalition demands, not Iraqi demands. The Coalition has absolutely no moral right whatsoever to do such a thing. Of course, this is by definition cronyism, because it just leads to further distrust and may also give the Coalition the pretext to incite more civil tensions in Iraq, and I mean all over it.

This one made me laugh:

"Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government."

He doesn't have to worry about it as there already is a strong Coalition influence on the government, which has proved more negative than positive.

The last point is just a pure re-iteration and confirmation of the goals of the Coalition in Iraq:

"Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period."

That couldn't have been more clearer, Rummy. The memo of options has proved itself to be just another sleazy political move on part of the U.S. government in the case of Iraq. All they have to do is favoritize certain political figures over others so they could do whatever the Coalition tells them to do, and yet the Coalition absolves itself from any and all responsibility.

Whatever it is, I'm glad that Rummy Rumsfeld's words, like those of any politician, are not going to be implemented into U.S. foreign policy in the future. He has finally stepped down, only to be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates (Associated Press, Forbes). Also commenting on this event is Counterpuncher Mike Whitney. Rumsfeld, according to Whitney, can't be trusted, because Rumsfled

spies on Americans' phone calls, computers, medical records, bank records and groups. He has been a stanch supporter of planting propaganda in newspapers and TV. He introduced a program that created a "rapid response" team to rebut information that is critical of US foreign policy appearing on blogs, web-sites and letters to the editor. He controlled the flow of information coming out of Iraq and managed to silence many of the war's critics. He developed a plan for "Total Information Awareness" that is designed to control everything that the public sees and hears from cradle to grave.

Now he is trying to write his own legacy. It is just another in a long list of deceptions; a smokescreen created to conceal his responsibility in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

The memo states that Rumsfeld was planning to make major adjustments and that "Clearly, what US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough". But "what US forces were doing" was exactly what Rumsfeld told them to do; nothing more, nothing less.

When he told them to bomb Falluja to the ground, they followed his orders; and when they tortured and stacked naked prisoners on top of each other, they followed his orders. And, when they trained the Shiite death squads to kill and maim Sunni suspects, they followed his orders.

Every major decision in 4 years of conflict bears Rumsfeld's imprimatur. It's his policy; it's his war. If Rumsfeld continued as Secretary of Defense, then nothing would change, because he has absolute confidence in violence and deception as the two main instruments for political transformation.

Rumsfeld's memo is great reading for fiction-lovers. It provides a revealing snapshot of a leader who carefully considered every alternative before making a decision. It's a stark contrast to the intractable narcissist who ignored his advisors and bullied his generals. But, like I said, it's great fiction.

Excerpt: "Announce that no matter whatever new approach the US decides on, the US is doing on a trial basis'. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, and therefore not lose'".

In other words, keep moving the goalposts while people die and the public will never catch on.

That's a whole new take on cynicism.

Rumsfeld has enjoyed his 6-year tenure as Sec-Def. He probably thought it would never end. Now what he needs is a good biographer, like Bob Woodward, who can invent a story about his exploits fighting "radical Islam's" attack on the "land of the free and the home of the brave". No doubt, there'll be a photo of the square-jawed Rummy plastered atop the muscled torso of Favio staving off the swarthy Middle Eastern males' with his trusty DOD-issue scimitar.

Enough said.

The memo is just more gibberish; the empty dissembling of a con-man trying to hoodwink the public before scuttling off into political oblivion.

I know that this might seem irrelevant - that he drafted up this plan - but think of the irony here: in his last move as the Secretary of "Defense", he clearly defined for us the imperialistic "divide and conquer" motives behind U.S. foreign policy. And yet, here we see another war criminal, in the same row as people like Henry Kissinger, Ariel Sharon, George W. Bush Jr., Tony Blair, Slobodan Milosevic, and others, scuffle away from justice.

So, yes, as Whitney pointed out, I've got the same advice for you, Rummy: Don't let the door hit you on the way out... Don.

Saracen