Rejecting the Bush Policy of Spreading "FREE DUMB"

Before he was (s)elected to office in the 2000 elections the preznit had been quoted as saying:

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . "

Something that rings true amongst most Americans, right?

In his ascendency speach following his second installment to the throne, refered to by some Americans as the "Diebold Debachle" (which was preceded by the highly partisan "Scotus Appointment" era) the preznit, much to the worry of many alarmed Americans and even some in the media, made dozens of references to his one and only reason left to have blundered into Iraq that had not been completely debunked as a minor justification to go to war in Iraq:

"America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

Are you weary yet?

The internet is littered with articles showing strong concern for the preznits huge change in policy towards supporting nation building. Alarm bells sounded off in every corner of America after that infamous speach.

The echoing ring of these bells has grown since then, and poll after poll has shown that America is in total disagreement with bush's policies, especially concerning spreading freedom, and the direction of the country lately. Zogby's impeachment question showed a serious faultering of any support for the bush regime's mis-direction by a large portion of those polled.

My message to you Mr bush:
"We are beyond weary!"

Today a poll on the direction of bush's foreign policy of "Spreading Democracy" through the use of force has been shown to be against the wishes of an overwhelmingly large majority of Americans:

America Rejects Using Military Force to Promote Democracy; Rejects Democratization as Rationale for Iraq War
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 U.S. Newswire

A new poll finds a majority of Americans reject the idea of using military force to promote democracy. Only 35 percent favored using military force to overthrow dictators. Less than one in five favored the US threatening to use military force if countries do not institute democratic reforms.

The effort to promote democracy in
Iraq is generating little enthusiasm.

(emaphasis mine)

The bold part is clearly an understatement. Not only is bush polling badly across the board with all Americans, but even his support from conservative republicans is dismal, to say the least:

Seventy-four percent (including 60 percent of Republicans) said that the goal of overthrowing Iraq's authoritarian government and establishing democracy was not a good enough reason to go to war. Seventy-two percent said that the experience has made them feel worse about the possibility of using military force to bring about democracy in the future. Sixty-four percent (65 percent of Republicans) are ready to accept an Iraqi constitution that does not fully meet democratic standards, and once the constitution is ratified 57 percent want to start withdrawing troops.

Given the large shift in Americans' views, don't you think it is time for America to make a serious change in the way we treat Middle-East politics, and start to fix the problems created by Bush and the neocon's agenda?

It is Time to bring the soldiers home.

Nobody wants to spread your "FREE DUMB" Mr. Bush... Not anymore.

Bush's Crash and Burn Policy on Iraq

Recently the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-faisal, has been heard pushing a message of the imminent failures in Iraq in the hopes that the bush admin. will hear what they are saying. Saudi worries are evidenced by al-faisal's recent quote in the NY Times:

"There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together," he said in a meeting with reporters at the Saudi Embassy here. "All the dynamics are pulling the country apart."

It is pretty darn obvious that the Saudies are concerned with the "seemingly" incompetent actions taken by the bush admin, and the influence that Iran is gaining over parts of Iraq as a result of this perceived incompetence.

But is this not a direct result of the real neocon agenda that is succeeding at ripping apart Iraq through Civil War?

It just happens that some of the parts that may break off are gaining strong Iranian influences.

Taken from the Timesonline:

Tougher language is being heard in the Arab world, where Iran has been a foe from the time of the Persians. Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, said: "We fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason."


Under the provisions of Iraq's federal constitution, which will go before a referendum on October 15, provinces will be allowed to create regional authorities. That has given rise to fears that the Shias in the south, with the support of Iran, will seek to create a mini Shia Islamic state, as Mr al-Hakim has already stated he wants.

I think the reasoning behind their message to the bush admin. becomes pretty darn clear when you read what the Saudi Foreign minister says up there.

They are freaking about Iranian influence that has resulted from the tensions created by the US.

Taken from the Timesonline:


Badr Brigades

A Shia militia force of 12,000 trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and blamed for a spate of recent killings of Sunni Muslims. Thought to control several cities in southern Iraq

Islamic Dawaa Party

Shia party that has strong links to Iran. Its leader, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the present Prime Minister, has vowed to improve ties between the two neighbours

Mahdi Army

Received arms and volunteers from Iran during its battle against US and British troops last year. Ahmed al-Fartusi, its commander in Basra, was arrested by British forces last weekend

Mujahidin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq

Tehran-backed militia blamed for the murder of six British Royal Military Police soldiers in Majar el-Kabir in 2003

Thar Allah (Vengeance of God)

Iranian-backed terror group blamed for killing former members of the ruling Baath party and enforcing strict Islamic law

Jamaat al-Fudalah (Group of the Virtuous)

Paramilitary group that imposes Islamic rules on Shia areas; attacks shops selling alcohol and music

Al-Fadilah (Morality)

Secret political movement financed by Iran. Thought to have many members among provincial officials

Al-Quawaid al-Islamiya (Islamic Bases)

Iranian-backed Islamic movement that uses force to impose Islamic law

From a Saudi perspective... Things aren't quite what they'd hoped for, huh?

Never mind that seems like civil war, and possibly what the bushies were trying for.

This only magnifies that point:


The western media has laboured hard in portraying the "Sunni community" as the major source of delay in the drafting process. The Bush administration has habitually presented events in Iraq as sectarian and ethnically biased; this presentation is not arbitrary or due to "misunderstanding" as some have claimed.

More truthfully, differing visions of Iraq are what delayed and essentially prevented the constitutional process from achieving consensual support. On the one hand we have an American-endorsed vision that proposes dividing Iraq up and we have the view of the opposition, which accepts nothing less than a unified Iraq.

In the autumn of 2004 the RAND Corporation, an American research company, published a research brief for the United States Navy arguing "cleavages within the Muslim world pose challenges and opportunities ... for US interests and strategy".

"I am making an appeal to all Iraqi citizens. Please do not divide yourselves anymore than you already have, and by dividing you empower the occupation and their agendas for your natural resources."

The RAND study highlights current divisions in the Muslim world between the Sunni and Shia, as well as between Arabs and non-Arabs as crucial to US interests.

The ethnic and sectarian federalism that has been proposed in Iraq fits well into this divisive framework. This insight into the strategic thinking of US thinktanks provides a contextual background to any assessment of US involvement in the Arab and Muslim world.

Here is a link to Rand's article U.S. Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11 (the one refered to in the Al Jazeera article).

In the entire Rand article there is one little sentence that sums up "what might happen?" if the US policy fails hidden inside the pages of optimism..

Beyond these long-term factors, certain catalytic events have shifted the political environment in the Muslim world toward radicalism. Major events include the Iranian revolution, the Afghan war with the Soviets, the Gulf War of 1991, and the global war on terrorism after September 11. The Iraq war and the removal of Saddam Hussein have surely had an effect on the Muslim world, but the long-term implications remain to be seen. A stable, pluralistic, and democratic Iraq would challenge anti-Western views in the Middle East and would undermine extremist arguments. On the other hand, if Iraq reverts to authoritarianism or fragments into ethnic enclaves, then U.S. credibility would diminish and radical groups would have greater opportunities to take hold.

And, golly gee... Is it ever happening.

But what if that was the bushies intention all along?

You can read almost any of Dahr Jamail's "Iraqi Dispatches" to get the true sense of how they are constantly creating more problems amongst the different Iraqi groups. At times it is almost like they are doing it all on purpose:

The failed siege of Fallujah

Thus, rather than improving security and stability in Fallujah and Iraq, the siege of Fallujah has accomplished nothing more than devastating the city and spreading the Iraqi resistance into other cities, such as Qaim, Beji, Baquba, Mosul, Ramadi, Latifiya and many areas of Baghdad.

It could easily be argued now that the siege of Fallujah accomplished the exact opposite of its stated goals - rather than bringing increased security and stability, it has inflamed tempers, deepened sectarian rifts and spurred the Iraqi resistance into levels of attack rarely seen prior to the siege.


U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged

He said continuing violations by U.S. soldiers had provoked people into confronting the occupying forces. He said troops had been raiding homes, sending women into the streets without their hijabs and entering areas where women sleep.

"The fighters are just local people who refuse to be treated like dogs," he said. "Nobody wants the Americans here."


This is our Guernica

Two US attempts were made to destroy this symbol of defiance last year. The first, in April, fizzled out after Iraqi politicians, including many who supported the invasion of their country, condemned the use of air strikes to terrorise an entire city.


One thing is certain: the attack on Falluja has done nothing to still the insurgency against the US-British occupation nor produced the death of al-Zarqawi - any more than the invasion of Afghanistan achieved the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. Thousands of bereaved and homeless Falluja families have a new reason to hate the US and its allies.


This decade's unforgettable monument to brutality and overkill is Falluja, a text-book case of how not to handle an insurgency, and a reminder that unpopular occupations will always degenerate into desperation and atrocity.


Sects and Solidarity in Iraq

The spokesman's point is clear: After decades of repression, now is the time for the Shiites to have power, no matter the price. "Most of the Sunnis are accepted by us, but there are those among them who don't want the Shia in the government, nor the Kurds. Some Sunnis will either kill us or make us slaves. We accept these elections now," says Asadi, pulling the abaya close over his shoulders. "But many Shias and Kurds believe dividing the country is the only real solution."


With Shiite domination in the National Assembly, they will have much power in writing Iraq's new constitution. Will this lopsided dynamic provoke a violent reaction from the Sunni-dominated insurgency? If it does, will the Shiite militias, like the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), strike back, igniting a civil war?


When examining the statements of some political and religious leaders from both communities, one gets the sense that civil war is indeed imminent. Sheik Asadi's venom toward the Sunni is matched by that of some of his Sunni counterparts toward the Shiites. But Western media outlets, focusing on the sensational, have played up the potential for civil war, muting the voices of Sunni and Shiite leaders who are skeptical of such predictions and united against partition.

That last part in bold is the kicker... The media is "playing up the potential for civil war" and bushies policies only inflame the situation.

We see this every day as one seemingly incompetent decision follows another.

It makes it all pretty darn clear what the Saudies see as a problem. They cannot believe that the Bush administration is truely this incompetenet. The Saudis believe that the US is trying to create civil war in the hopes of ripping the country apart.

Perhaps the Bush admin. wants to divide the country up and, per usual, the media is only helping them along. And maybe neocons want Iraq to descend into civil war which will, theoretically, make each part more manageable for America.

Either that or they are completely incompetent and clueless as to how much the US forces continued presence there, and their actions based on Bush policies, are the cause of most of the problems in Iraq.

Based on what ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson has to say about it all I have come to the conclusion that the Bush administration is really just that incompetent:

How do I know? Foreign officials with the job of tracking and fighting aspiring terrorists tell me so. During the last year I have provided briefings on terrorist trends to senior leaders from Pakistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Tunisia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Mali. Although they come from different countries they convey the same message—what the hell are you doing?

Our friends and allies naively believe that we have a plan and know what we are doing. Nonetheless, they also tell me that just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 created Bin Laden and his ilk that our invasion of Iraq is creating the next generation of terrorists. They see that their societies are becoming more anti-U.S. than pro. They see a new generation of idealistic youth falling under the conviction that God (Allah) is calling them to fight the infidel. They are genuinely afraid that we have lit a fuze on a bomb that will detonate in the next few years unless we demonstrate we are in control.

We have all seen the resulting chaos from neocon theory thus far. Regardless of what the Bush administration and the neocon's "supposed" real plans are or were, the results aren't pretty. They have failed miserably in every aspect and every step of the way.

Just ignore the thousands that had to die to create this chaos. And ignore the fact that it leaves Iranians with more influence in the region. And ignore that this is creating more instability in the Middle-East, even amongst our few allies there.