The Next War - Bush Plans World War III, While Pretending to Reassess Iraq

Excellent Articles:

• The Next War

• Is Attacking Iran a Viable Option? [Analysis] The definitive end of U.S. military supremacy

• CNN: Exactly Who Are We Fighting In Iraq?

• Bush's policy quagmire

• At War, in denial.

• U.S. generals call for Democratic takeover


Here are a few particularly interesting stories around the Iraq war, recent interesting developments, background stories and also more discussion and analysis of the potential for what appears to be the coming conflagration with Iran. It seems very likely to provoke a major war that has a very real possibility of spreading far beyond the intended battlefield.

The Next War, by Daniel Ellsberg

A hidden crisis is under way. Many government insiders are aware of serious plans for war with Iran, but Congress and the public remain largely in the dark. The current situation is very like that of 1964, the year preceding our overt, open-ended escalation of the Vietnam War, and 2002, the year leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In both cases, if one or more conscientious insiders had closed the information gap with unauthorized disclosures to the public, a disastrous war might have been averted entirely. . . .(read the rest at the above link)

Frightening Analysis: This article offers interesting details, particularly about the multiple recent military exercises by so many of the world's powers - in anticipation of potential conflict in Iran. I've seen other even more frightening discussions of how Syria and Israel will get pulled in rather quickly if we attack Iran (Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel goes deep into Lebanon, Syria responds) - but I thought this article was particularly interesting in regard to the regional details it brings out that our national press just don't seem to comprehend as all that interesting or newsworthy. Maybe that is good for Democrats in this election cycle. I hope so. The world needs a change.

Is Attacking Iran a Viable Option? [Analysis] The definitive end of U.S. military supremacy

On one side is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Led by China and Russia, the SCO has four other permanent member states: Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Along with a senior official from India's oil and gas industry, the prime ministers of Pakistan, Mongolia, Afghanistan and Iran attended the last meeting in Shanghai on June 15. It was the first meeting since Iran announced that it had successfully enriched Uranium: Iran was invited to become a full member.

The meeting was about strengthening trade and exports but also had a strong undertone of strengthening the alliance. A verbal oath was sworn for defending each other in the event of any attack. China and Russia have already signed military cooperation agreements with and are the main suppliers of advanced weaponry to Iran and Syria. This gave them verbal military cooperation agreements with all the SCO members, including Iran.

A senior spokesperson for U.S. ally Japan said: "The SCO is becoming a rival block to the U.S. alliance; it does not share our values. We are watching it very closely." The U.S. too was watching it very closely, but from afar because their request for observer status at the meeting had been denied on the grounds that they shared neither land nor fluvial border with any of the SCO member states.

The meeting's undertone of warning the U.S. against attacking Iran was evident in Chinese President Hu Jintao's closing statement: "We hope the outside world will accept the social system and path to development independently chosen by our members and observers and respect the domestic and foreign policies adopted by the SCO participants in line with their national conditions."

Jintao's statement was immediately followed by the verbal agreement -- all members vowing to defend each other's sovereignty and the alliance as a whole. (Read the rest at the above link)

CNN Story, very important: Exactly Who Are We Fighting In Iraq?

America's enemies in Iraq can be divided into two main groups: Sunni and Shi'a. But there are groups within groups, factions within factions.

Shi'a militias attack British and American troops according to Coalition intelligence officers, not to defeat them, but to keep them in a defensive mode. So they worry about survival instead of the militia's political control and their Iranian backing.

But the insurgents most Americans recognize as the enemy are Iraqi Sunnis. They are mainly former military from Saddam's regime and account for most U.S. casualties. They are divided into two large categories: nationalists and Islamists, each comprised of smaller groups. As the nationalists, their agenda is secular, anti-Iranian and focused on liberating Iraq from foreign occupation.

The Islamists, meanwhile, are more moderate than al Qaeda. They don't call for a religious state. They tolerate other Muslim sects and also vow to fight until U.S. forces leave.

Both of these large insurgent blocks are willing to talk peace with the United States. But there is still those America cannot reach. The darkest heart of the Sunni insurgency, al Qaeda and the many groups aligned with it.

This is the group that sends out suicide bombers and who once cut off westerners' heads. To them, there will be no end until Osama bin Laden's plans for an international Islamic state are fulfilled.

And most troubling, the longer this war goes, the more Sunni groups drift toward al Qaeda and the more Shi'a embrace Iran.

Sydney Blumenthal: Bush's policy quagmire
The president is already signaling he'll disregard James A. Baker III's recommendations for reshaping U.S. policy in the Middle East. But will Baker sit still?

The NIE Conclusions, Ignored by Bush - You probably saw this, the major media did cover it a bit, including the New York Times. But Bush apparently hasn't read it - or if he has, he didn't pay attention, just like those briefings before Katrina, and before 9/11, and . . . we have a Prez with ADD, someone help us!:

Sydney Blumenthal: At War, in denial.
Sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies contributed to the NIE report that concludes Iraq "has become the cause célèbre for jihadists." Bush ignores them all.

U.S. generals call for Democratic takeover: Gen. John Batiste ( "lifelong Republican") and Gen. Paul Eaton call for change. Events in Iraq couldn't get worse. If Republicans stay in, things will get much much worse. This seems just pragmatic common sense at this point.

"The best thing that can happen right now is for one or both of our houses to go Democratic so we can have some oversight," Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, told Salon. Batiste describes himself as a "lifelong Republican." But now, he said, "It is time for a change."

Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, agrees that Democratic control of Congress could be the best way to wrest control from the Bush administration and steer the United States away from a gravely flawed strategy in Iraq. "The way out that I see is to hand the House and the Senate to the Democrats and get this thing turned around," Eaton explained, adding that such sentiment is growing among retired and active-duty military leaders. "Most of us see two more years of the same if the Republicans stay in power," he said. He also noted, "You could not have tortured me enough to vote for Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore, but I'm not at all thrilled with who I did vote for."

An active-duty senior military official who also served in Iraq said that, among a surprising number of his otherwise "very conservative" colleagues, there is hope that Democrats will gain control of Congress. "I will tell you, in the circles I talk to, the only way to enable or enact change is to change the leadership," he said.